Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy

doi:10.1067/mge.2001.118950

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volume 54, Issue 5, November 2001, Pages 558-562

https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2001.118950 Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: Prediction of a technically difficult colonoscopy may influence patient selection and procedure scheduling. Identification of predictive factors may be difficult because a common endpoint used to evaluate the success of colonoscopy is intubation of the cecum, which is usually achieved. The goal of this study was to examine the feasibility of using an alternative measure, time required for cecal intubation, to identify factors that can impact performance of colonoscopy. Methods: The time required for cecal intubation was prospectively recorded for 802 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies performed by 7 experienced gastroenterologists. Patient data collected included height, weight, age, bowel habits, surgical history, and findings at colonoscopy. Forty-seven examinations that were stopped because of disease or unacceptable bowel preparation were excluded. The impact of the patient characteristics of the remaining sample of 755 patients on the median time required for cecal intubation for men and women was examined. Results: Older age and female gender, body mass index ≤25.0 (regardless of gender), diverticular disease in women, and a history of constipation or reported laxative use in men were predictors of difficult colonoscopy. Conclusions: By using median time required for cecal intubation, several patient characteristics were identified that may predict technical difficulty at colonoscopy. These findings have implications for practice and teaching. (Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:558-62.)

Section snippets

Patients and methods

Seven board-certified gastroenterologists participated in the study. Two had completed GI fellowships within 5 years of the study, 2 within 10 years, and 3 had at least 15 years experience. All endoscopists used the same type of colonoscope (CF-140L, Olympus America, Inc., Melville, N.Y.). An independent observer, usually the endoscopy nurse, recorded time in seconds from insertion of the colonoscope to maximum cecal intubation or the conclusion of the examination in patients in whom the cecum

Results

The adjusted completion rate for colonoscopy in women was 95.7% versus 99.0% for men (χ² = 7.78, p < 0.01). As shown in Table 1, the median time to the cecum for women was 405 seconds (range 68 seconds to 1815 seconds; interquartile range = 348 seconds; 252-600 seconds). The median time to the cecum for men was 275 seconds (range 75 seconds to 1532 seconds; interquartile range = 210 seconds; 178-388 seconds). Of the 77 patients who reported constipation or laxative use, only 3 had melanosis

Discussion

By using time required to intubate the cecum, factors were identified that may predict which patients will have technically difficult colonoscopies. Our data support previous studies that demonstrated that colonoscopy is more difficult in women compared with men.1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 Although the results of other studies suggest that colonoscopies in women with prior hysterectomies may be more difficult compared with patients who have not had this operation,3, 4 our findings were that hysterectomy

Acknowledgements

We thank Douglas L. Brand for his helpful comments and suggestions.

References (14)

JD Waye et al.
Total colonoscopy: is it always possible?
Gastrointest Endosc
(1991)
BP Saunders et al.
Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?
Gastrointest Endosc
(1996)
JD. Waye
Completing colonoscopy
Am J Gastroenterol
(2000)
A Chak et al.
Prospective assessment of colonoscopic intubation skills in trainees
Gastrointest Endosc
(1996)
D Shumaker et al.
Use of a variable stiffness colonoscope allows completion of colonoscopy after failure with the standard adult colonoscope
Gastrointest Endosc
(2000)
S Nivatvongs et al.
How difficult is total colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(1982)
JM. Church
Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not?
Am J Gastroenterol
(1994)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (196)

Low Body Mass Index and Risk of Endoscopy-Related Adverse Events: A United States Cohort Propensity Score—Matched Study
2024, Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Patients with a low body mass index (LBMI) are often encountered in routine outpatient gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy practice, and the assessment of procedure-related risks in this subset of individuals remains paramount. Although the risk of endoscopy-related adverse events (AEs) has been reported in patients with obesity, the association between LBMI and AEs has not been established.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a multi-institutional database, to assess the risk of endoscopy-related AEs in patients with LBMI (<18.4 kg/m²) compared with patients with a nonobese body mass index (18.5-29.9 kg/m²) (control cohort) after low-risk outpatient diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. One-to-one (1:1) propensity score matching was performed. The primary endpoints were to assess the risk of GI bleeding, perforation, or aspiration pneumonia within 30 days. Risk was expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals.
A total of 28,677, 18,449, and 3076 patients with LBMI underwent EGD, colonoscopy, and PEG tube placement, respectively. After propensity score matching, compared with the control cohort, patients with LBMI undergoing EGD and colonoscopy with or without biopsies were at an increased risk for GI bleeding (aOR 1.36 and 2.21), perforation (aOR 1.96 and 2.65), and aspiration pneumonia (aOR 3.13 and 2.71), respectively. Additionally, patients in the LBMI PEG cohort were found to be at an increased risk for aspiration pneumonia (aOR 1.33).
Our study shows that, when compared with nonobese controls, patients with LBMI are at an increased risk of endoscopy-related AEs. Appropriate precautions must be considered while performing routine endoscopic procedures to offset these risks in such patients.
Yield of Post-acute Diverticulitis Colonoscopy for Ruling out Colorectal Cancer
2022, Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Citation Excerpt :
More recently, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has suggested that the decision to proceed with post-AD colonoscopy should take a more nuanced, multifactorial approach that takes into account disease severity, the patient's past medical history, and the most recent colonoscopy findings.14 Colonoscopy in the post-AD patient may carry an increased risk for perforation or other adverse events, especially if the AD is not resolved by the 6- to 8-week mark, for example, if residual colonic inflammation or narrowing is present during colonoscopy.15–18 Moreover, performing colonoscopy in every individual post-AD may not represent efficient utilization of a costly and limited resource.
Colonoscopy is recommended for post-acute diverticulitis (AD) to exclude underlying colorectal cancer (CRC). However, post-AD colonoscopy utility remains controversial. We aimed to examine yield of post-AD colonoscopy in our predominately Hispanic patient population.
Patients undergoing post-AD colonoscopy between November 1, 2015 and July 31, 2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained endoscopic database. AD cases without computed tomography confirmation were excluded. Pertinent data were abstracted, including whether patients had complicated or uncomplicated AD; fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result post-AD and precolonoscopy; number, type, and location of nonadvanced adenomas; advanced adenomas; and CRC. Analyses were conducted using 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher exact tests.
Two hundred eight patients were included, of whom 62.0% had uncomplicated AD. Median age was 53 years, 113 (54.3%) were female, and 161 (77.4%) were Hispanic. Ninety nonadvanced adenomas were detected in 45 patients (21.6%), in addition to eight advanced adenomas in 8 patients (3.8%). Two patients (1.0%) had CRC, both of whom had complicated AD in the same location seen on imaging, and 1 of whom was FIT positive (the other had not undergone FIT). Patients with uncomplicated vs complicated AD had similarly low rates of advanced adenomas (4.7% vs 2.5%, P = 0.713). FIT data were available for 51 patients and positive in 3 (5.9%); nonadvanced adenomas were found in all 3 patients who were FIT positive. No patient who was FIT negative had an advanced adenoma or CRC.
Colonoscopy post-AD is generally low yield, with CRC rarely being found and only in those with complicated AD. Colonoscopy post-complicated AD appears advisable, whereas less invasive testing (eg, FIT) may be considered for post-uncomplicated AD to inform the need for colonoscopy.
Use of Total Underwater Colonoscopy to Navigate Endoscopic Challenges
2020, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Comparison of the characteristics of the CF-H290I and PCF-Q260JI colonoscopes in non-sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled study
2024, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
Clinical value of sigmoid colon water exchange colonoscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial
2023, Scientific Reports
A multicentre study assessing the role of routine colonoscopy after acute uncomplicated diverticulitis and the incidence of colorectal cancer diagnosis
2023, International Journal of Colorectal Disease

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: †Deceased March 4, 2001.

^☆☆: Reprint requests: Joseph Anderson, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Room 60, Health Science Center T-17, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794.

View full text

Original ArticlesFactors predictive of difficult colonoscopy☆,☆☆

Abstract

Section snippets

Patients and methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Am J Gastroenterol

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

How difficult is total colonoscopy

Gastrointest Endosc

Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not?

Am J Gastroenterol

Original Articles
Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy☆,☆☆