INTRODUCTION: Double contrast barium enema (DCBE) is used to screen and diagnose colorectal disease and is often recommended following an incomplete colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of DCBE following an incomplete colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who had an incomplete colonoscopy at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles in a 6-year period. Patient data was extracted from the endoscopy and radiology databases. Variables collected included demographics, indication for colonoscopy, reason for incompletion, findings of DCBE, and findings of repeat colonoscopy if subsequently performed. RESULTS: The incomplete colonoscopy rate was 1.6%. The mean age was 62 years with a predominance of females. The most common indication for colonoscopy was screening. The most frequent reason attributed to an incomplete colonoscopy was patient discomfort. Two hundred thirty three patients underwent DCBE and 42 patients underwent a repeat colonoscopy without DCBE; 13.3% of the DCBE were of poor quality and could not be interpreted. A repeat colonoscopy following DCBE was performed in 7% of patients. In 50% of these patients, the repeat colonoscopy revealed significant findings not noted on the DCBE or ruled out positive DCBE findings. In patients who had repeat colonoscopy without DCBE, completion rate was 95%. CONCLUSION: The rate of incomplete colonoscopy in a high-volume modern endoscopy unit is extremely low. DCBE following incomplete colonoscopy has limited value. A repeat colonoscopy under deeper sedation and/or better bowel preparation may be the preferred next step.
INTRODUCTION: Double contrast barium enema (DCBE) is used to screen and diagnose colorectal disease and is often recommended following an incomplete colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the value of DCBE following an incomplete colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who had an incomplete colonoscopy at Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles in a 6-year period. Patient data was extracted from the endoscopy and radiology databases. Variables collected included demographics, indication for colonoscopy, reason for incompletion, findings of DCBE, and findings of repeat colonoscopy if subsequently performed. RESULTS: The incomplete colonoscopy rate was 1.6%. The mean age was 62 years with a predominance of females. The most common indication for colonoscopy was screening. The most frequent reason attributed to an incomplete colonoscopy was patient discomfort. Two hundred thirty three patients underwent DCBE and 42 patients underwent a repeat colonoscopy without DCBE; 13.3% of the DCBE were of poor quality and could not be interpreted. A repeat colonoscopy following DCBE was performed in 7% of patients. In 50% of these patients, the repeat colonoscopy revealed significant findings not noted on the DCBE or ruled out positive DCBE findings. In patients who had repeat colonoscopy without DCBE, completion rate was 95%. CONCLUSION: The rate of incomplete colonoscopy in a high-volume modern endoscopy unit is extremely low. DCBE following incomplete colonoscopy has limited value. A repeat colonoscopy under deeper sedation and/or better bowel preparation may be the preferred next step.
Authors: S J Winawer; R H Fletcher; L Miller; F Godlee; M H Stolar; C D Mulrow; S H Woolf; S N Glick; T G Ganiats; J H Bond; L Rosen; J G Zapka; S J Olsen; F M Giardiello; J E Sisk; R Van Antwerp; C Brown-Davis; D A Marciniak; R J Mayer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; John Bond; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; David Johnson; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; Perry J Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Robert A Smith; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Carol Smigal; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Laurian Copel; Jacob Sosna; Jonathan B Kruskal; Vassilios Raptopoulos; Richard J Farrell; Martina M Morrin Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 11.105