Krishn Kant Rawal1, Varun P Shukla2, Shabbir Chikani3, Milan Thakkar4, Mukesh Ruparelia5, Rajesh K Chudasama6. 1. Prime Institute of Digestive Sciences, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot, 360 004, India. kkrawal@gmail.com. 2. Prime Institute of Digestive Sciences, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot, 360 004, India. 3. Milestone Hospital, Vidyanagar Main Road, Rajkot, 360 002, India. 4. Retina Care Centre, Virani Chowk, Vidyanagar Main Road, Rajkot, 360 002, India. 5. Devarsh, 13-Manhar Plot, Mangala Main Road, Rajkot, 360 002, India. 6. Department of Community Medicine, PDU Government Medical College, Rajkot, 360 001, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The data on prevalence of extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) in ulcerative colitis (UC) are scanty and highly variable. METHODS: Consecutive patients with UC were prospectively evaluated from November 2016 to August 2017. A detailed history was obtained and physical examination was done. Presence of EIM was confirmed by a consultant rheumatologist, ophthalmologist and dermatologist. Tests performed were hemogram, liver function test, abdominal ultrasound, slit lamp examination, X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging when deemed necessary. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients with UC were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of EIM was 7.92%. Mucocutaneous (4.84%) manifestations were the commonest, followed by musculoskeletal (1.32%) and ocular (0.88%). Hepatobiliary (0.44%) and vascular (0.44) manifestations were present in equal frequency. History of appendicectomy was associated with EIM. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of EIM in UC was low in our study. History of appendicectomy was a risk factor for EIM.
BACKGROUND: The data on prevalence of extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) in ulcerative colitis (UC) are scanty and highly variable. METHODS: Consecutive patients with UC were prospectively evaluated from November 2016 to August 2017. A detailed history was obtained and physical examination was done. Presence of EIM was confirmed by a consultant rheumatologist, ophthalmologist and dermatologist. Tests performed were hemogram, liver function test, abdominal ultrasound, slit lamp examination, X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging when deemed necessary. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients with UC were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of EIM was 7.92%. Mucocutaneous (4.84%) manifestations were the commonest, followed by musculoskeletal (1.32%) and ocular (0.88%). Hepatobiliary (0.44%) and vascular (0.44) manifestations were present in equal frequency. History of appendicectomy was associated with EIM. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of EIM in UC was low in our study. History of appendicectomy was a risk factor for EIM.