PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Colonoscopy”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources

The effect of colonoscopy on serum prostate specific antigen levels.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in a prospective trial, the effect of colonoscopy on serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (which are known to increase after cystoscopy and prostatic needle biopsy) in men aged 50-70 years, as they commonly undergo colonoscopy and PSA screening together. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive men (mean age 61 years, range 37-78) were enrolled in the study. All subjects had their serum PSA measured 24-72 h before undergoing colonoscopy. Further values were obtained 24 h, 7 and 30 days after the procedure. The values before and after colonoscopy were compared to evaluate the effect of colonoscopy on serum PSA levels. RESULTS: Of 24 patients, seven (35%) had insignificant increases at 24 h after colonoscopy; 12 (50%) patients had an insignificant increase in PSA level 30 days after the procedure. None of the 24 patients had a significant increase after colonoscopy when compared with baseline values. CONCLUSION: Flexible colonoscopy does not adversely affect serum PSA levels. Although individuals may have a 30% daily fluctuation in serum values, this study detected no significant change in serum PSA levels after prolonged transrectal prostatic manipulation with a colonoscope.

Adult↗

Technical considerations and patient comfort in total colonoscopy with and without a transparent cap: initial experiences from a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Even though colonoscopy was introduced 30 years ago, endoscopists still leave a small percentage of the colonic mucosal surface unexamined because of the limitations of the procedure, so there is still room for technical improvements. The aim of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of attaching a transparent cap to the tip of the colonoscope, partly to gather basic data and experience for planning a larger randomized study, and partly to evaluate any technical advantages or disadvantages, and also to appraise the patients' experiences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 50 consecutive patients examined by a single experienced endoscopist, a prospective pilot study was carried out comparing the use of a colonoscope fitted with a transparent cap (in half of the colonoscopies) with the use of an ordinary colonoscope without a cap (in the remaining 25 patients). The following parameters were recorded: indication for colonoscopy, time to reach the cecum, total time for the colonoscopy, findings, diagnosis, type of colonoscopy (diagnostic or therapeutic, partial or total, ileal intubation), the amount of analgesia and sedation given during the endoscopy, and complications. At the end of the examination and also before leaving the hospital, the patients were asked by a nurse to estimate pain experienced during the colonoscopy, using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The time for the procedure, the ability to perform a complete colonoscopy (including ileal intubation when it was medically relevant), and the complication rate turned out to be similar in both groups. There were no differences between the amounts of analgesia and sedation given during the endoscopy or between the patients' estimations of the pain experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The time to reach the cecum and the total time for the colonoscopy is the same with or without the cap, which is well tolerated by patients. Using the cap greatly facilitates the possibility of finding small polyps behind folds in the colon, because the folds can be straightened, thereby improving the view, although in this small pilot study it could not be proven that the number of polyps found was greater using a cap-fitted colonoscope.

Adult↗

[Screening colonoscopy among persons 50 to 60 years of age with and without familial risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective multicenter trial].

BACKGROUND: In Germany screening colonoscopy was introduced into the National program on colorectal cancer prevention in Oktober 2002. The prevalence of neoplasia in patients with and without familiar risk was determined together with patient satisfaction with screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects from 50 to 60 years underwent screening colonoscopy and were stratified in two groups with and without familiar risk (first-degree relatives with CRC) in a multicenter trial among German gastroenterologists. Advanced neoplasia was defined as an adenoma at least 1 cm in diameter, a villous adenoma, an adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. After recovery from sedation all subjects were asked if they would agree to a control colonoscopy and the pain score was recorded on a scale from 0 to 6. RESULTS: A total of 557 subjects (322 at average risk and 235 with familiar risk) underwent screening colonoscopy. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia in subjects without/with familiar risk was not significantly different in persons from 50 to 54 years (9 vs. 15 %) in contrast to persons from 55 to 60 years (10 vs. 22 %, p = 0.004) where the relative risk was doubled. Compared to younger patients, the prevalence of all neoplasia (including small adenomas) was significantly different only for older patients with familiar risk (44 vs. 23 %, p < 0.0001). The mean value of the pain-score was 0.76 + 1.0. Subjects examined without medication had significantly higher pain scores than subjects under medication. Colonoscopy performed under disoprivan resulted in similar pain-scores compared to midazolam at dosages > 5 mg. All patients agreed to a control colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Screening colonoscopy is an effective and well-accepted method. The high prevalence of advanced neoplasia even in persons from 50 to 54 years suggests that screening should start at the age of 50.

Adenoma↗

Hypoxaemia and myocardial ischaemia during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial ischaemia (defined as ST-segment deviation on electrocardiogram (ECG)) may occur during colonoscopy, but the pathogenic mechanisms are unknown. We have evaluated the occurrence of arterial hypoxaemia, tachycardia, and myocardial ischaemia during routine colonoscopy. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent colonoscopy under conscious sedation and without supplementary oxygen. Arterial oxygen saturation was measured by continuous pulse oximetry, and ECG was monitored continuously with a Holter tape recorder during the procedure. RESULTS: Arterial oxygen desaturation and tachycardia were common during colonoscopy and occurred in 45% and 35% of patients, respectively. Two patients developed signs of myocardial ischaemia during the colonoscopy: one case of ST depression (1.7 mV) and one case of ST elevation (4.3 mV). In both patients the ST deviation disappeared when the colonoscope was retracted. Myocardial ischaemia occurred in both patients simultaneously with tachycardia, and in one of these arterial hypoxaemia was also present. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial ischaemia occurs during routine colonoscopy, but with a lower incidence than previously reported during upper endoscopy. Myocardial ischaemia during colonoscopy may be associated with tachycardia and/or hypoxaemia. Further studies should clarify the relative role of tachycardia, hypoxaemia, and viscerocardiac reflexes in the pathogenesis of myocardial ischaemia during colonoscopy.

Adult↗

A prospective audit of paediatric colonoscopy under general anaesthesia.

Colonoscopy in children is frequently performed using intravenous sedation. Traditionally, there have been few advocates of general anaesthesia and some have regarded colonoscopy conducted in this way as potentially more hazardous. The aim of this study was to undertake a prospective audit of paediatric colonoscopy carried out under general anaesthesia. The details of all children referred for colonoscopy during a 3.5-y period were collected prospectively and the safety and efficacy of performing colonoscopy under general anaesthesia were analysed. A total of 250 colonoscopies was performed in 215 children of median age 10.7 y (range 5 months to 16 y) and ileoscopy was carried out in 164 of these cases. An increasing proportion of patients was investigated as day-cases, including most of the 56 who had additional procedures carried out under the same anaesthetic. There were no complications from the colonoscopy (including the 18 patients who underwent polypectomy). Only one procedure-related complication occurred and this was avoidable. These results confirm the safety of paediatric colonoscopy under general anaesthesia and demonstrate the advantages and feasibility of such an approach.

Adolescent↗

Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Although the risk of bowel perforation is often cited as a major factor in the choice between colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal screening, good estimates of the absolute and relative risks of perforation are lacking. METHODS: We used a large population-based cohort that consisted of a random sample of 5% of Medicare beneficiaries living in regions of the United States covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries to determine rates of perforation in people aged 65 years and older. We identified individuals who were cancer-free and had undergone colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy between 1991 and 1998, calculated both the incidence and risk of perforation within 7 days of the procedure, and explored the impact on incidence and risk of perforation of age, race/ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and indication for the procedure. We also estimated the risk of death after perforation. Risks were calculated with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: There were 77 perforations after 39 286 colonoscopies (incidence = 1.96/1000 procedures) and 31 perforations after 35 298 sigmoidoscopies (incidence = 0.88/1000 procedures). After adjustment, the OR for perforation from colonoscopy relative to perforation from sigmoidoscopy was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.2 to 2.8). Risk of perforation from either procedure increased in association with increasing age (P(trend)<.001 for both procedures) and the presence of two or more comorbidities (P(trend)<.001 for colonoscopy and P(trend) =.03 for sigmoidoscopy). Compared with those who were endoscopied and did not have a perforation, the risk of death was statistically significantly increased for those who had a perforation after either colonoscopy (OR = 9.0, 95% CI = 3.0 to 27.3) or sigmoidoscopy (OR = 8.8, 95% CI = 1.6 to 48.5). The risk of perforation after colonoscopy, especially for screening procedures, declined during the 8-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of perforation after colonoscopy is approximately double that after sigmoidoscopy, but this difference appears to be decreasing. These observations should be useful to clinicians making screening and diagnostic decisions for individual patients and to policy officials setting guidelines for colorectal cancer screening programs.

Aged↗

Colonoscopy curriculum development and performance-based assessment criteria on a computer-based endoscopy simulator.

OBJECTIVE: Computer-based colonoscopy simulators (CBCS) have been developed and are being introduced into the training environment. The ability of these simulators to replicate the dimensions of patient-based diagnostic colonoscopy is good. However, the benefit of simulators to either learners or their patients has not yet been established. We describe a process by which a CBCS curriculum and CBCS-based performance criteria were established for first-year gastroenterology fellows at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. DESCRIPTION: We used a commercially available CBCS (AccuTouch Endoscopy Simulator, Immersion Medical, Gaithersburg, MD), which consists of a specialized colonoscope that is inserted into a computer-based module with a screen showing the colonic lumen of a virtual patient. A tutorial and six cases of varying complexity are available on the CBCS. Performance variables that are measured by the simulator include the time to complete the procedure, the distance that the scope was advanced, the degree to which the mucosa was adequately visualized, the possible complications such as colonic perforation, and the level of pain experienced by the simulated patient. To begin, we established ideal performance standards by measuring the above variables for ten "expert" faculty colonscopists who completed two cases on the CBCS. Next, we measured CBCS performance standards for five partially trained colonoscopists. Finally, two non-physician gastrointestinal assistants, without prior endoscopic training, were asked to practice on the simulator to determine the time and procedure frequency required to improve their CBCS proficiency. By calculating average performance standards within each of these three groups, we were able to estimate the number of CBCS cases and minimal performance standards for new trainees. Based on the learning curves for novice colonoscopists as well as the performances of partially trained and expert colonoscopists, we speculated that if CBCS training were to be beneficial, the benefit would most likely occur at the early stages of training. The curriculum we developed consists of viewing a one-hour, multimedia tutorial, which describes the procedure and various colonoscopy techniques. This is followed by nine hours of hands-on CBCS experience, during which time the trainee will complete approximately 25 CBCS colonoscopies. Before advancing to live-patient colonoscopies, the trainee must meet certain performance standards on specific CBCS cases. These standards include the ability to view the entire colon in less than 15 minutes with minimal pain and no complications. DISCUSSION: If effective, this new colonoscopy training curriculum should result in improved competency at patient-based colonoscopy, particularly in the early stages of training. To address this question, first-year gastroenterology fellows at Mayo Clinic have been randomized into two groups: (1) a group that experiences a tutorial with hands-on CBCS curriculum and (2) a group that experiences a tutorial only. Their performances at patient-based colonoscopy as well as surveys of patient satisfaction will be measured and analyzed to determine what, if any, benefit is provided by CBCS.

Clinical Competence↗

Preprocedure patient values regarding sedation for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Adherence rates for screening colonoscopy remain low. There are little data describing pre-colonoscopy patient concepts, values, and preferences for sedation during colonoscopy. In this study, we sought to investigate preprocedure patient values regarding sedation use for colonoscopy. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 210 consecutive outpatients presenting for colonoscopy. An unscaled visual analog scale was used to value each of eight statements relating to sedation. RESULTS: The statement receiving the highest valuation was "I don't want to feel any pain" (mean score, 82 +/- 21), followed by "I want to go to sleep and not wake up until the procedure is over" (mean score, 71 +/- 31), and "I want to be alert as soon as possible after the procedure" (mean score, 65 +/- 30). The statement receiving the lowest value was "I'd like to watch as much of the procedure as I can" (22 +/- 29). Patients who preferred to undergo colonoscopy without sedation were more likely to be men (P = 0.001) and more likely to have graduate or professional educational degrees (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that, on average, American patients place the highest valuation on experiencing no pain during colonoscopy, waking up promptly after the procedure, and for going to sleep and not waking up until the procedure is over. However, unsedated colonoscopy does appeal to a small minority of patients, primarily men with graduate educations.

Colonoscopy↗

Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is debate about the optimal colorectal cancer screening test, partly because of concerns about colonoscopy demand. AIM: To quantify the demand for colonoscopy with different screening tests, and to estimate the ability of the United States health care system to meet demand. METHODS: We used a previously published Markov model and the United States census data to estimate colonoscopy demand. We then used an endoscopic database to compare current rates of screening-related colonoscopy with those projected by the model, and to estimate the number of endoscopists needed to meet colonoscopy demand. RESULTS: Annual demand for colonoscopy ranges from 2.21 to 7.96 million. Based on current practice patterns, demand exceeds current supply regardless of screening strategy. We estimate that an increase of at least 1360 gastroenterologists would be necessary to meet demand for colonoscopic screening undergone once at age 65, while colonoscopy every 10 years could require 32 700 more gastroenterologists. A system using dedicated endoscopists could meet demand with fewer endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening leads to demand for colonoscopy that outstrips supply. Systems to train dedicated screening endoscopists may be necessary in order to provide population-wide screening. The costs and feasibility of establishing this infrastructure should be studied further.

Aged↗

Endoscopic evaluation of chronic human immunodeficiency virus-related diarrhea: is colonoscopy superior to flexible sigmoidoscopy?

OBJECTIVES: In patients with chronic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related diarrhea undergoing lower endoscopy, the decision to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy is controversial. The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) to evaluate the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in a large group of patients with chronic HIV-related diarrhea and negative stool studies, and 2) to determine whether colonoscopy is superior to flexible sigmoidoscopy in this setting. METHODS: All HIV-infected patients with chronic diarrhea who were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy at Bellevue Hospital Center between January 1992 and December 1996 were identified. Patient charts, pathology reports, and endoscopy records were reviewed. RESULTS: During the 5-yr study period, 317 consecutive patients with chronic unexplained diarrhea undergoing colonoscopy were identified. A potential cause of diarrhea was found in 116 patients (36.6%). Cytomegalovirus was the most common pathogen detected (24%). The yield of colonoscopy was significantly higher in patients with a CD4 count of <100 cells/mm3 than in those with higher CD4 counts (44.8% vs 6.4%, p < 0.0001). Thirty percent of pathogens and 75% of lymphomas were identified only on biopsies taken from the proximal colon, well beyond the reach of the flexible sigmoidoscope. Importantly, 94% of the pathogens that were found only in the proximal colon were organisms for which effective therapy is currently available. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is superior to flexible sigmoidoscopy in HIV-infected patients with chronic unexplained diarrhea. If flexible sigmoidoscopy had been performed instead of colonoscopy, 30% of pathogens would have been missed and 75% of lymphomas would have escaped detection.

AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections↗

Procedure-related abdominal discomfort in patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine if there was a difference in procedure-related abdominal discomfort or willingness to return for subsequent screening examinations between patients undergoing colonoscopy and those undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: Two groups were compared: patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and patients referred for screening colonoscopy. All patients were asymptomatic for colorectal cancer. Four university-based gastroenterologists performed all procedures. Patients received conscious sedation for colonoscopy but not for flexible sigmoidoscopy. A research nurse blinded to the procedure performed and the study purpose administered a standardized telephone questionnaire assessing and quantifying peri-procedural discomfort. RESULTS: A cohort of 466 patients underwent screening examinations, and 87% were contacted subsequent to their examination. Procedure-related discomfort, postprocedural discomfort, or discomfort at either of these two times ("peri-procedural discomfort") occurred in 28% (68/243), 14% (34/243), and 36% (88/243) of patients undergoing colonoscopy, respectively. Procedure-related discomfort, postprocedural discomfort, or discomfort at either of these two times occurred in 58% (94/162), 16% (26/162), and 62% (100/162) of patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. Peri-procedural discomfort was significantly more common in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy than with colonoscopy (p < 0.0005). Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were more willing to undergo the procedure again than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy with conscious sedation are less likely to experience peri-procedural discomfort than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Although most patients are willing to undergo subsequent screening examinations, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy are significantly more willing to undergo a subsequent examination than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Abdominal Pain↗

The role of high-magnification-chromoscopic colonoscopy in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer screening: a prospective "back-to-back" endoscopic study.

BACKGROUND: In hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer flat and diminutive adenomas occur, particularly in the right colon. Such lesions may assume a high risk of malignant transformation. Interval cancers are known to occur in this group. Chromoscopic colonoscopy enhances detection in patients assuming a moderate to high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. AIM: To prospectively assess the efficacy of high-magnification-chromoscopic colonoscopy for the detection of neoplastic lesions in patients undergoing hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Twenty-five asymptomatic patients fulfilling modified Amsterdam criteria underwent "back-to-back" colonoscopy. Conventional colonoscopy with targeted chromoscopy was performed initially followed by pan-colonic chromoscopic colonoscopy. Diagnostic extubation times and volumes of normal saline and indigo carmine (IC) were controlled. RESULTS: Using conventional colonoscopy and targeted chromoscopy 24 lesions were detected in 13 patients (20 exophytic/4 flat). Pan-colonic chromoscopy identified a further 52 lesions in 16 patients (17 exophytic/35 flat). Pan-chromoscopy identified significantly more adenomas than conventional colonoscopy (p= 0.001) and a significantly high number of flat adenomas (p= 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Pan-colonic chromoscopic colonoscopy improves detection of significant neoplastic lesions in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer screening. Pan-chromoscopy may help better stratify colorectal cancer "risk" in this cohort and aid planning of surveillance colonoscopic follow-up.

Adult↗

Colonoscopy in the very old: why bother?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of colonoscopy in patients aged at least 85 years. Does the ideal of an ageism free service apply? DESIGN: A retrospective audit. SETTING: Department of gastroenterology that carries out about 1000 colonoscopies annually in a district general hospital serving a population of about 320 000. SUBJECTS: All patients aged at least 85 years who underwent colonoscopy over five years to 2003. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The indications for colonoscopy and its findings. The outcome of patients found to have colonic cancers. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was completed in 219 cases (69%). The main reasons for failure were poor bowel preparation and severe diverticular disease. Normal findings occurred in 65 (30%) of the 219 cases that had had a complete examination. Colonoscopy identified a problem that explained the patient's symptoms in 116 (37%) cases. Polyps were found in 45 (14.2%) cases and malignancy in 28 (8.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of significant complications and comparatively high yield of colonic malignancies and polyps reinforces the value of colonoscopy as a diagnostic tool even after 85 years of age and despite the technical challenges of the procedure in this age group that limited completion. Increasing age alone should not preclude a patient from colonoscopy.

Age Factors↗

Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess and compare perceptions of and preferences for computed tomographic (CT) colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination (DCBE) by asymptomatic patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 696 asymptomatic patients at higher-than-average risk undergoing colorectal cancer screening were consecutively recruited to undergo both CT colonography and colonoscopy (group 1), and a like group of 617 patients was separately recruited to undergo both CT colonography and DCBE (group 2). Standard bowel preparations were different between the groups undergoing colonoscopy and DCBE. Each patient completed a questionnaire that assessed preparation inconvenience and discomfort, examination discomfort, willingness to repeat examinations, and examination preference. Survey results were compared for significance by using the Wilcoxon rank sum or chi2 test. RESULTS: The majority of patients considered the preparation to be uncomfortable (group 1, 460 of 515 [89%]; group 2, 482 of 538 [90%]) and inconvenient (group 1, 393 of 502 [78%]; group 2, 427 of 527 [81%]). Reported discomfort was similar at CT colonography and colonoscopy (P =.63) but was less at CT colonography than at DCBE (P <.001). Patients experienced significantly less discomfort than expected at both CT colonography and colonoscopy but not at DCBE. Patients' willingness to undergo frequent rescreening was significantly greater for CT colonography than for either colonoscopy or DCBE. The acceptable time interval between screenings was significantly shorter for all examinations if the bowel preparation could be avoided. Overall, patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy (group 1, 72.3% vs 5.1%; P <.001) or to DCBE (group 2, 97.0% vs 0.4%; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening prefer CT colonography to both colonoscopy and DCBE. The majority of patients experience discomfort and inconvenience with cathartic bowel preparation.

Adult↗

Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare dark-lumen magnetic resonance (MR) colonography with conventional colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local ethical committee approval and informed consent were obtained. One hundred consecutive patients (56 men, 44 women; mean age +/- standard deviation, 67.7 years +/- 14.7; range, 25-82 years) who were referred for conventional colonoscopy from January 2003 to January 2004 underwent MR colonography and conventional colonoscopy after standard precolonoscopic bowel cleansing. Colonoscopy was performed immediately after MR colonography. For MR colonography, the colon was filled with approximately 2000 mL of tap water. Imaging was performed with a 1.5-T MR unit with patients in the prone position. A T1-weighted three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold sequence was performed before and 75 seconds after intravenous administration of 0.2 mmol gadobenate dimeglumine per kilogram of body weight. Results of MR colonography were analyzed on a per-polyp and per-patient basis. Findings at colonoscopy were used as the reference for determining accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of MR colonography. RESULTS: Of 100 patients recruited for study, 92 (52 men, 40 women; mean age, 61.5 years +/- 14.5; range, 25-82 years) underwent complete MR and conventional colonoscopy examinations. Forty-three of the 92 patients (47%) had normal findings at conventional colonoscopy. In the other 49 patients (53%), conventional colonoscopy depicted 107 polyps (82 adenomas, 25 hyperplastic polyps) and seven carcinomas. At per-polyp analysis, sensitivity of MR colonography in the detection of adenomatous polyps was 100% for polyps at least 10 mm in diameter and 84.2% for polyps 6-9 mm in diameter. At per-patient analysis, the accuracy of MR colonography was 93.1% (sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 96%) if detection of adenomatous polyps of all sizes was considered. CONCLUSION: Dark-lumen MR colonography is a promising modality with high accuracy for detecting colorectal polyps larger than 5 mm in diameter.

Adult↗

[Utility of routine use of reversion after sedation in outpatient colonoscopy].

INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of flumazenil in reducing recovery time in the endoscopy unit after conscious sedation with midazolam and meperidine. However, its effectiveness in routine clinical practice has not been proved and therefore its use is debated. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in outpatient colonoscopy and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Two hundred consecutive outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy with conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in 2 endoscopy units were prospectively included. According to routine clinical practice in each unit, 100 patients were reverted with flumazenil and 100 were not. Medical and demographic data, indications for endoscopy, doses of the medications used and endoscopic findings were collected. Three weeks after the colonoscopy each patient was interviewed by telephone to determine discomfort and complications associated with the endoscopy and/or with the use of sedation. The cost-effectiveness of the use of flumazenil was analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in age (52.9 +/- 15.5 vs 52.7 +/- 18.3, p = NS), indications for colonoscopy, findings, percentage of full colonoscopies (93 vs 95%; p = NS) or in the doses of sedatives used. The recovery time in each endoscopy unit was similar (19.2 +/- 11.7 vs 15.5 +/- 10.1 minutes, p = NS). In the reversion group there were fewer patients with prolonged stays, defined as those > 20 minutes (23 vs 11%, p < 0.001). The number of patients who remembered discomfort during the colonoscopy was significantly greater in the reversion group (23 vs 13%; p < 0.05). There were no differences in the number of patients who reported discomfort in the days following the endoscopy. The best cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for a mean stay of 25 min. CONCLUSION: Routine use of reversion does not decrease the mean stay in the endoscopy unit but does decrease the number of prolonged stays. Unpleasant memories of the colonoscopy were more frequent in reverted patients. The effectiveness of the routine use of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine depends on the ratio between the number of daily colonoscopies and the capacity of the recovery room.

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗

Colonoscopy demand and practice in a regional hospital over 9 years in Hong Kong: resource implication for cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Hong Kong is rising. The trend of colonoscopy demand is uncertain. AIM: To investigate colonoscopy demand and practice in a Hong Kong regional hospital over the past nine years. METHODS: Colonoscopy data from 1st January 1997 to 31st August 2005 were retrieved and divided into two equal periods for comparison. Colonoscopy practice and findings between the two periods were compared. RESULTS: There was no change in the number of endoscopists and colonoscopy sessions in the two periods. The number of colonoscopy done in the two periods was 2,681 and 2,871, respectively. The indications for screening of CRC/polyp (9.3 vs. 24.7%, p < 0.0001) and surveillance of CRC/polyp (4.7 vs. 10.9%, p < 0.0001) were increased, but decreased for diarrhea (18 vs. 10.2%, p < 0.0001) and per rectal bleeding (19 vs. 8.1%, p < 0.0001). The waiting time was lengthened from 2 to 4 weeks (p < 0.0001). The percentage of colonic adenomas (19.9 vs. 27.2%, p < 0.0001) was increased. A right-shift was observed in both CRC (37 vs. 50%, p = 0.018) and adenoma (21.6 vs. 38.1%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The number of colonoscopies performed was governed by capacity partly through lengthening of waiting time to cope with demand. Ways to improve capacity for colonoscopies is needed.

Adolescent↗

Acceptance of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy for screening and surveillance in colorectal cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVES: To study an individual's experience of either flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) or colonoscopy in a colorectal cancer prevention programme. METHODS: Consecutive individuals in a Bowel Cancer Prevention Programme, who had either an unsedated FS or a colonoscopy with sedation, participated in a prospective cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. RESULTS: A total of 447 responses were obtained for 256 colonoscopies and 191 FSs (200 men [45%] and 247 women [55%]). The overall experience of colonoscopy was more comfortable than FS (75% versus 18%; P<0.001). Embarrassment was low for both procedures (8%). There was no pain associated with colonoscopy and most individuals had a pain score of less than 3 (11-point scale) for FS: 72% of men, 55% of women (P<0.001). Most individuals did not have a gender preference for the endoscopist. For colonoscopy, the worst part of the procedure was the preparation (78%) and for FS the preparation and the procedure ranked equally worst (30%). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that colonoscopy with sedation is a very comfortable procedure. FS is more uncomfortable than colonoscopy; however, for the majority it is a tolerable experience. Women found FS only slightly more painful than men. The worst part of either procedure was the preparation. Embarrassment with either procedure was minimal. Both procedures are well tolerated and suitable for colorectal cancer screening.

Colonoscopes↗