Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 24 January 2018

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using an upper endoscope

Thinner, more flexible endoscopes should be considered when performing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in women, find physicians in the latest issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening.

Women are more likely than men to have a flexible sigmoidoscopy with a limited depth of insertion.

In this study, physicians from the United States assessed satisfaction in women undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

The team compared an upper endoscope (group E, diameter 9.8 mm) with a standard sigmoidoscope (group S, diameter 13.3 mm).

They measured pain and discomfort and overall satisfaction using a validated survey instrument. They also assessed depth of insertion of the instrument, frequency of polyp detection, and complication rate.

A total of 160 asymptomatic women underwent screening flexible sigmoidoscopy over a 4-month period. All procedures were performed by 2 experienced physician assistants.

The physicians determined that the 2 groups were of similar age and had a similar rate of previous abdominal surgery or hysterectomy.
Pain and discomfort were less in the upper endoscope group.
American Journal of Gastroenterology

The team found that depth of insertion of the scope was 54.5 cm for group E and 51.6 cm for group S.

Polyps were found in 18% of patients in group E and 10% in group S. This difference was not statistically significant.

The team established that overall satisfaction was similar in both groups, but pain and discomfort were less in group E.

There was no difference in the endoscopists’ assessment of procedure difficult and complication rates.

The team found that the total duration for the procedure was 7.2 minutes in group E and 5.7 minutes in group S.

Dr Francis Farraye and colleagues concluded, “Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in women using an upper endoscope is a feasible approach to colorectal cancer screening”.

“Patients screened with an upper endoscope reported less pain and discomfort compared to standard sigmoidoscope while overall satisfaction did not differ”.

“The trend toward increased polyp detection in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy with an upper endoscope may be related to a more thorough examination due to less patient discomfort and/or an increased depth of insertion of the upper endoscope”.

“Thinner, more flexible endoscopes should be considered when performing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy in women”.

Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(6): 1074-80
11 June 2004

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 24 January 2018 
Risk factors underlying previously undiagnosed cirrhosis
 24 January 2018 
Ethnicity influences phenotype in IBD
 24 January 2018 
Bariatric surgery vs medical obesity treatment
 23 January 2018 
Atrophic gastritis after H. pylori eradication
 23 January 2018 
Ectopic pregnancy in women with IBD
 23 January 2018 
Celiac disease in IBS in the USA
 22 January 2018 
Costs of biologic therapies for IBD in the USA
 22 January 2018 
Western vs Asian guidelines for colon cancer management
 22 January 2018 
Improving symptoms in GERD
 19 January 2018 
Predicting the risk of early surgery in Crohn’s
 19 January 2018 
Ileoanal pouch microbiota
 19 January 2018 
Lifestyle intervention vs gastric bypass for obesity and diabetes
 18 January 2018 
Sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
 18 January 2018 
Healthcare costs of liver cancer in the USA
 18 January 2018 
High-risk adenomas at colonoscopy
 17 January 2018 
“Weekend effect” in upper GI hemorrhage
 17 January 2018 
Gut dysbiosis and non-antibiotic prescription medications
 17 January 2018 
Reducing surgical infections in high-outlier colorectal unit
 16 January 2018 
Bundle of care in GI cancer surgery
 16 January 2018 
Anxiety about colonoscopy
 16 January 2018 
Thiopurines and colorectal neoplasia in IBD
 15 January 2018 
Risks of death after liver transplants for liver cancer
 15 January 2018 
Recent advances in hepatocellular carcinoma
 15 January 2018 
Ileostomy output using telemedicine
 12 January 2018 
Surveillance protocols after colorectal cancer resection
 12 January 2018 
Biologic therapy by pregnant women with IBD and infant vaccines
 12 January 2018 
Biologic therapies for IBD in the USA
 11 January 2018 
Genetic risk factors in GERD
 11 January 2018 
Predictor of colorectal adenoma
 11 January 2018 
Ectopic pregnancy in IBD 
 10 January 2018 
Fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening
 10 January 2018 
Risk factors for advanced NAFLD
 10 January 2018 
Dyspepsia prevalence with gastroesophageal reflux–type symptoms
 09 January 2018 
Screening intervals for people with family histories of colorectal cancer
 09 January 2018 
Financial impact of colorectal cancer
 09 January 2018 
Current practice and future research in autoimmune hepatitis
 08 January 2018 
Reliability of the IBD index
 08 January 2018 
Improving prognosis in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis
 08 January 2018 
Aprepitant and nausea with gastroparesis
 05 January 2018 
Autoimmune pancreatitis and IBD
 05 January 2018 
Primary nonresponse to infliximab therapy
 05 January 2018 
Anesthesia assistance in outpatient colonoscopy
 04 January 2018 
Dietary polyphenols in the etiology of IBD
 04 January 2018 
Yoga vs low-FODMAP in IBS
 04 January 2018 
Local esophageal food allergen injections in eosinophilic esophagitis
 03 January 2018 
Population health management for IBD
 03 January 2018 
GERD in asthma and COPD
 03 January 2018 
Critical research gaps in colorectal cancer
 22 December 2017 
Costs of extrahepatic manifestations of Hep C
 22 December 2017 
Cholera vaccine and risk of death in colorectal cancer
 22 December 2017 
Colonoscopy after colorectal cancer resection
 21 December 2017 
Human oral microbiome and pancreatic cancer risk
 21 December 2017 
Health management for IBD
 21 December 2017 
PPI and Alzheimer's disease
 20 December 2017 
Management of abnormal liver blood tests
 20 December 2017 
Incidence of biopsy-verified celiac disease
 20 December 2017 
Osteoporotic fractures in Barrett's esophagus
 19 December 2017 
Alcohol abstinence and alcoholic hepatitis
 19 December 2017 
Family burden of pediatric Crohn's in the USA
 19 December 2017 
Early readmission in IBD patients

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2018 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us