BACKGROUND: Cecal intubation is one of the goals of a quality colonoscopy; however, many factors increasing the risk of incomplete colonoscopy have been implicated. The implications of missed pathology and the demand on health care resources for return colonoscopies pose a conundrum to many physicians. The optimal course of action after incomplete colonoscopy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess endoscopic completion rates of previously incomplete colonoscopies, the methods used to complete them and the factors that led to the previous incomplete procedure. METHODS: All patients who previously underwent incomplete colonoscopy (2005 to 2010) and were referred to St Paul's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) were evaluated. Colonoscopies were re-attempted by a single endoscopist. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (29 males) with a mean (± SD) age of 58 ± 13.2 years were included in the analysis. Thirty patients (33%) had their initial colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist. Indications for initial colonoscopy included surveillance or screening (23%), abdominal pain (15%), gastrointestinal bleeding (29%), change in bowel habits or constitutional symptoms (18%), anemia (7%) and chronic diarrhea (8%). Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy included poor preparation (11%), pain or inadequate sedation (16%), tortuous colon (30%), diverticular disease (6%), obstructing mass (6%) and stricturing disease (10%). Reasons for incomplete procedures in the remaining 21% of patients were not reported by the referring physician. Eighty-seven (97%) colonoscopies were subsequently completed in a single attempt at the institution. Seventy-six (84%) colonoscopies were performed using routine manoeuvres, patient positioning and a variable-stiffness colonoscope (either standard or pediatric). A standard 160 or 180 series Olympus gastroscope (Olympus, Japan) was used in five patients (6%) to navigate through sigmoid diverticular disease; a pediatric colonoscope was used in six patients (7%) for similar reasons. Repeat colonoscopy on the remaining three patients (3%) failed: all three required surgery for strictures (two had obstructing malignant masses and one had a severe benign obstructing sigmoid diverticular stricture). CONCLUSION: Most patients with previous incomplete colonoscopy can undergo a successful repeat colonoscopy at a tertiary care centre with instruments that are readily available to most gastroenterologists. Other modalities for evaluation of the colon should be deferred until a second attempt is made at an expert centre.
BACKGROUND: Cecal intubation is one of the goals of a quality colonoscopy; however, many factors increasing the risk of incomplete colonoscopy have been implicated. The implications of missed pathology and the demand on health care resources for return colonoscopies pose a conundrum to many physicians. The optimal course of action after incomplete colonoscopy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess endoscopic completion rates of previously incomplete colonoscopies, the methods used to complete them and the factors that led to the previous incomplete procedure. METHODS: All patients who previously underwent incomplete colonoscopy (2005 to 2010) and were referred to St Paul's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) were evaluated. Colonoscopies were re-attempted by a single endoscopist. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (29 males) with a mean (± SD) age of 58 ± 13.2 years were included in the analysis. Thirty patients (33%) had their initial colonoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist. Indications for initial colonoscopy included surveillance or screening (23%), abdominal pain (15%), gastrointestinal bleeding (29%), change in bowel habits or constitutional symptoms (18%), anemia (7%) and chronic diarrhea (8%). Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy included poor preparation (11%), pain or inadequate sedation (16%), tortuous colon (30%), diverticular disease (6%), obstructing mass (6%) and stricturing disease (10%). Reasons for incomplete procedures in the remaining 21% of patients were not reported by the referring physician. Eighty-seven (97%) colonoscopies were subsequently completed in a single attempt at the institution. Seventy-six (84%) colonoscopies were performed using routine manoeuvres, patient positioning and a variable-stiffness colonoscope (either standard or pediatric). A standard 160 or 180 series Olympus gastroscope (Olympus, Japan) was used in five patients (6%) to navigate through sigmoid diverticular disease; a pediatric colonoscope was used in six patients (7%) for similar reasons. Repeat colonoscopy on the remaining three patients (3%) failed: all three required surgery for strictures (two had obstructing malignant masses and one had a severe benign obstructing sigmoid diverticular stricture). CONCLUSION: Most patients with previous incomplete colonoscopy can undergo a successful repeat colonoscopy at a tertiary care centre with instruments that are readily available to most gastroenterologists. Other modalities for evaluation of the colon should be deferred until a second attempt is made at an expert centre.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Don C Rockey; Matthew Barish; Joel V Brill; Brooks D Cash; Joel G Fletcher; Prateek Sharma; Sachin Wani; Maurits J Wiersema; Laura E Peterson; Jennifer Conte Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Shabana F Pasha; M Edwyn Harrison; Ananya Das; Carolyn M Corrado; Kristine N Arnell; Jonathan A Leighton Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hemant A Shah; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Therese A Stukel; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 22.682
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
Authors: Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Shorabuddin Syed; Adam Jackson Angel; Hafsa Bareen Syeda; Carole Franc Jennings; Joseph VanScoy; Mahanazuddin Syed; Melody Greer; Sudeepa Bhattacharyya; Shaymaa Al-Shukri; Meredith Zozus; Fred Prior; Benjamin Tharian Journal: Biomed Eng Syst Technol Int Jt Conf BIOSTEC Revis Sel Pap Date: 2022-02
Authors: Olusegun Isaac Alatise; Omobolaji O Ayandipo; Ademola Adeyeye; Ken Seier; Akinwunmi O Komolafe; Matthew O Bojuwoye; Oludapo O Afuwape; Ann Zauber; Adeleye Omisore; Samuel Olatoke; Adegboyega Akere; Olusola Famurewa; Mithat Gonen; David O Irabor; T Peter Kingham Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephen Thomas Ward; Mohammed A Mohammed; Robert Walt; Roland Valori; Tariq Ismail; Paul Dunckley Journal: Gut Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 23.059