OBJECTIVE: There is controversy whether constipation as a primary presenting complaint is an indication for diagnostic colonoscopy. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive and more acceptable alternative. We compared the completion and sensitivity of colonoscopy with CTC in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted which examined the first 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs carried out for the primary symptom of constipation from June 2012 to December 2013. The primary outcome measure was failure rate of the investigations. Secondary outcomes included reasons for failure and comparison of cost effectiveness between the two modalities. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Of these, the first consecutive 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs were included. One colonic cancer was detected in each of the CTC and the colonoscopy arm, respectively. 37 (37%) attempted colonoscopies were incomplete examinations. The most common reasons were discomfort (51.4%) and poor bowel preparation (27%). There was no failure of CTC. For 100 patients, CTC as a primary investigation was a more cost-effective investigation (p ≤ 0.01) costing £55,016 as compared with colonoscopy costing £73,666. CONCLUSION: There is an unacceptably high failure rate of colonoscopy in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation. Hence, we propose that CTC may be an acceptable first-line investigation with a further colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy if lesions are detected. Advances in knowledge: First study to examine the use of CTC in patients with constipation.
OBJECTIVE: There is controversy whether constipation as a primary presenting complaint is an indication for diagnostic colonoscopy. CT colonography (CTC) is a less invasive and more acceptable alternative. We compared the completion and sensitivity of colonoscopy with CTC in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted which examined the first 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs carried out for the primary symptom of constipation from June 2012 to December 2013. The primary outcome measure was failure rate of the investigations. Secondary outcomes included reasons for failure and comparison of cost effectiveness between the two modalities. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Of these, the first consecutive 100 colonoscopies and 100 CTCs were included. One colonic cancer was detected in each of the CTC and the colonoscopy arm, respectively. 37 (37%) attempted colonoscopies were incomplete examinations. The most common reasons were discomfort (51.4%) and poor bowel preparation (27%). There was no failure of CTC. For 100 patients, CTC as a primary investigation was a more cost-effective investigation (p ≤ 0.01) costing £55,016 as compared with colonoscopy costing £73,666. CONCLUSION: There is an unacceptably high failure rate of colonoscopy in patients who presented with the primary symptom of constipation. Hence, we propose that CTC may be an acceptable first-line investigation with a further colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy if lesions are detected. Advances in knowledge: First study to examine the use of CTC in patients with constipation.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart R Cairns; John H Scholefield; Robert J Steele; Malcolm G Dunlop; Huw J W Thomas; Gareth D Evans; Jayne A Eaden; Matthew D Rutter; Wendy P Atkin; Brian P Saunders; Anneke Lucassen; Paul Jenkins; Peter D Fairclough; Christopher R J Woodhouse Journal: Gut Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Esther M Stoop; Margriet C de Haan; Thomas R de Wijkerslooth; Patrick M Bossuyt; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; C Yung Nio; Marc J van de Vijver; Katharina Biermann; Maarten Thomeer; Monique E van Leerdam; Paul Fockens; Jaap Stoker; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michael Macari; Edmund J Bini; Xiaonan Xue; Andrew Milano; Seth S Katz; Daniel Resnick; Hersh Chandarana; Glen Krinsky; Klaus Klingenbeck; Christopher H Marshall; Alec J Megibow Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hendrikus J M Pullens; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Robert J F Laheij; Frank P Vleggaar; Peter D Siersema Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321