Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Sigmoidoscopy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

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

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Evaluation of flexible sigmoidoscopy as an investigation for "left sided" colorectal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the best way of imaging the colon with concurrent biopsy and treatment. However it is expensive, requires full bowel preparation, and carries a risk of complications. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an alternative way to investigate symptoms that raise the suspicion of a lesion of the rectum or left colon. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate flexible sigmoidoscopy as the main investigation for "left sided" colorectal symptoms. METHODS: The clinical records of 317 patients who were assessed at a colorectal specialist clinic and were thought to have a suspicion of a lesion of the rectum or left colon were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had flexible sigmoidoscopy as the primary investigation. Primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of flexible sigmoidoscopy and secondary outcomes were any additional colonic investigations required, failure rates, and complication rates. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixteen patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy with the above criteria were retrospectively analysed. Twenty four procedures (7.6%) had to be abandoned because of poor bowel preparation. The examination was considered complete when it reached the splenic flexure, which was the case in 205 cases (65%). In 137 flexible sigmoidoscopies (43.3%) there were no abnormal findings. Of the remaining 179 a carcinoma of the rectum or colon was found in 28 cases (8.8%) and one or more polyps was found in 57 (18%) cases. On the basis of the findings it was calculated that 31% of the patients would require an additional investigation for further imaging of the right colon. DISCUSSION: Although flexible sigmoidoscopy has a high yield of pathologies when carried out by a specialist colorectal clinic, the presence of those pathologies makes the full imaging of the whole colon with an additional investigation necessary. Therefore the cost efficiency of flexible sigmoidoscopy is questionable. Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is indicated for certain patients, it cannot replace colonoscopy as the main investigation used by a specialist colorectal clinic.

Colonic Diseases↗
PubMed1998

Is colonoscopy indicated for small adenomas found by screening flexible sigmoidoscopy?

BACKGROUND: There is controversy over whether patients who have a small tubular adenoma on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy should undergo colonoscopic examination of the proximal colon. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively determine the prevalence of advanced polyps in the proximal colon among patients who have small adenomas on screening sigmoidoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A health maintenance organization and a Veterans Affairs medical center. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic patients older than 50 years of age who had no risk factors for colon cancer and underwent sigmoidoscopy. INTERVENTION: At the time of sigmoidoscopy, all polyps were biopsied and characterized. All patients with distal adenomas were offered colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: The size and histology of polyps identified by sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy were noted. Polyps were considered advanced if they were larger than 10 mm or were tubulovillous, villous, or malignant. The prevalence of advanced proximal polyps was determined, and patients were stratified by the size and number of distal polyps found by sigmoidoscopy. RESULTS: Among 4490 patients who underwent sigmoidoscopy, a neoplastic lesion was detected in 401 (8.9%) and colonoscopy was done in 301 (75%). Of 90 patients with a single tubular adenoma 1 to 5 mm in diameter in the distal colon, 0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%) had an advanced proximal polyp compared with 5.4% (CI, 2.4% to 10.4%) of those who had multiple distal polyps 1 to 5 mm or 6 to 10 mm in diameter and 7.9% (CI, 2.6% to 17.6%) of those who had advanced distal polyps (P = 0.013 for trend). The low-risk group with a single tubular adenoma 1 to 5 mm in diameter represented 44% of all patients with distal adenomas or cancers found at flexible sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing screening sigmoidoscopy, those with single tubular adenomas of 5 mm or less had a low prevalence of advanced proximal polyps. These patients may not benefit from colonoscopy.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2000

Patient satisfaction with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is an underused cancer prevention procedure. Physicians often cite patient discomfort as a reason for not requesting sigmoidoscopy, but patient experiences and attitudes toward sigmoidoscopy have not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure patient satisfaction and the determinants of satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: An instrument to assess satisfaction with screening sigmoidoscopy was developed. Responses were evaluated with a factor analysis, tested for reproducibility and internal consistency, and validated against an external standard. RESULTS: A total of 1221 patients (666 men and 555 women; mean age, 61.8 years) were surveyed after sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed by a nurse practitioner (n = 668), internist (n = 344), or gastrointestinal specialist (n= 184). More than 93% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed they would be willing to undergo another examination, and 74.9% would strongly recommend the procedure to their friends. Regarding pain and discomfort, 76.2% strongly agreed or agreed that the examination did not cause a lot of pain, 78.1% stated that it did not cause a lot of discomfort, and 68.5% thought that it was more comfortable than they expected. Fifteen percent to 25% of the patients indicated they had a lot of pain, great discomfort, or more discomfort than expected. Women were more likely to have significant pain or discomfort than men (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.3; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 70% of individuals who undergo screening sigmoidoscopy are satisfied and find the procedure more comfortable than expected, whereas only 15% to 25% find the procedure unpleasant. Physicians should not project discomfort onto patients as a reason for not requesting screening sigmoidoscopy.

Factor Analysis, Statistical↗
PubMed1995

Sigmoidoscopy use among primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite endorsement by a variety of professional societies, screening sigmoidoscopy is performed on a small minority of patients. We performed a survey of primary care physicians in Allegheny County to examine in detail their current practice and attitude toward screening sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: Physicians were surveyed by mail or telephone. Eligible respondents were required to practice in the county and perform direct patients care. RESULTS: Of 732 adult primary care physicians in Allegheny County, 400 were randomly selected for sampling and 279, or 70%, responded. Over 88% of physicians agreed completely or partly with current American Cancer Society recommendations for screening sigmoidoscopy, but only 34% (95% CI 29-39%) reported they regularly refer or schedule patients for screening. Physicians who screen were more likely to be from internal medicine or family practice (P < 0.001) and to be trained in (P < 0.001) or to personally perform (P < 0.001) sigmoidoscopy. The greater the number of barriers to screening cited by physicians, including cost, patient discomfort, equipment availability, low probability of finding a lesion, time it takes to do sigmoidoscopy, and the risk of the procedure, the lower the screening rate (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: (a) Although primary care physicians in Allegheny County report that they support screening sigmoidoscopy, only one-third regularly refer or schedule patients, (b) physicians who are trained in or who perform sigmoidoscopy are more likely to screen patients, and (c) further education and training of primary care physicians in sigmoidoscopy will be required to increase screening rates.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Do characteristics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopy is presently recommended for patients with any benign neoplasm found on sigmoidoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether characteristics of adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict advanced lesions on baseline colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 226 asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with adenomas noted on flexible sigmoidoscopy at a large, multispecialty medical group were prospectively studied. The histology, size, and number of benign polyps on flexible sigmoidoscopy were compared with those on subsequent colonoscopy. Advanced lesions were defined as adenomas > 1 cm in diameter or with villous or severe dysplasia histology. Univariate comparisons were assessed using the chi 2 test and multivariate analysis with stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a 24% prevalence of new adenomas found on colonoscopy. Six percent of the patients had advanced lesions on colonoscopy, and none had cancer. Multivariate analysis indicated that findings on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict (P < 0.01) those on colonoscopy. Patients with advanced lesions on sigmoidoscopy had a > 10% prevalence of an advanced lesion on colonoscopy. Patients with small (< or = 1 cm) tubular adenoma(s) on sigmoidoscopy had a < 1% occurrence of an advanced synchronous lesion. CONCLUSIONS: The histology and size of benign neoplasms found on flexible sigmoidoscopy predict findings on baseline colonoscopy.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2002

Flexible sigmoidoscopy: the patients' perception.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety, discomfort, and high levels of concern can affect patient attitude toward endoscopic procedures as well as compliance and adherence to current recommendations for the examination. This study evaluated how patients perceive flexible sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at two sites of 764 patients presenting for GI endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy 175, colonoscopy 384, EGD 205). Before these procedures, patients rated their anticipated (preprocedure) difficulty and degree of concern for each of 30 specific concerns. After the procedure, the patients rated their actual (postprocedure) difficulty. Patients' levels of concerns and difficulty were compared before and after the procedure and among the 3 procedure types. RESULTS: Before the procedure, patients who were to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy had fewer concerns and lower scores for the severity of the concerns than did patients having colonoscopy or EGD. After the procedure, patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy rated it as more difficult than patients who had colonoscopy or EGD. Patients who had colonoscopy and EGD graded their actual difficulty as less than their anticipated difficulty. However, patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy rated the actual difficulty the same as the anticipated difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients have fewer concerns regarding flexible sigmoidoscopy than for the other endoscopic procedures, after the procedure they rate sigmoidoscopy as more difficult compared with postprocedure ratings by patients who underwent colonoscopy or EGD. This suggests that it may be necessary to change the perception of flexible sigmoidoscopy as being the best tolerated of the endoscopic procedures.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Baseline findings of the Italian multicenter randomized controlled trial of "once-only sigmoidoscopy"--SCORE.

BACKGROUND: A single sigmoidoscopy examination at around age 60 years has been proposed as a cost-effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer. A multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SCORE trial, is in progress in Italy to estimate the impact of this strategy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and the duration of the protective effect. We present the baseline screening outcomes. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 236 568 people aged 55-64 years to assess their eligibility for and interest in screening. Those reporting a history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, recent colorectal endoscopy, or two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer were excluded. Eligible, interested respondents were assigned randomly to the control group (no further contact) or the intervention group (invitation to undergo sigmoidoscopy). Screenees with colorectal cancer, polyps larger than 5 mm, three or more adenomas, adenomas 5 mm or smaller with a villous component of more than 20%, or severe dysplasia were referred for colonoscopy. RESULTS: Of the 56 532 respondents (23.9% of those invited), 34 292 were enrolled and 17 148 were assigned to the screening group. Of those, 9999 attended and 9911 were actually examined by sigmoidoscopy. Distal adenomas were detected in 1070 subjects (10.8%). Proximal adenomas were detected in 116 of 747 (15.5%) subjects without cancer at sigmoidoscopy who then underwent colonoscopy. A total of 54 subjects was found to have colorectal cancer, a rate of 5.4 per 1000 (54% of which were Dukes' A). The procedures were relatively safe, with two perforations (one in 9911 sigmoidoscopy exams and one in 775 colonoscopies) and one hemorrhage requiring hospitalization after polypectomy during colonoscopy. The pain associated with sigmoidoscopy was described as mild or less than expected by 83.3% of the screenees. CONCLUSION: Sigmoidoscopy screening is generally acceptable to recipients and safe. The high yield of advanced adenomas is consistent with the projected impact of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence.

Adenoma↗
PubMed2006

Extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by colonoscopists for colorectal cancer screening: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Caecal intubation can be achieved by extended flexible sigmoidoscopy in 32% of patients. AIM: To assess the feasibility of extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by colonoscopists for colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We enrolled 41 patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. After purging, examination was performed with a colonoscope. All patients completed sigmoidoscopy (success in meeting referral goal); 93% and 71% had examination to the transverse or ascending colon, and caecum, respectively. Overall yield and right-sided polyps was 56% and 27%, respectively. Caecal intubation and complete examination with polypectomy took 6.0 +/- 2.5 and 18.3 +/- 5.1 min, respectively; with no complications. Twelve patients requested colonoscope withdrawal because of discomfort. Although 46% reported moderate to severe discomfort, 39% and 36%, respectively, were definitely or probably willing to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy. RESULTS: Unsedated colonoscopy introduced as extended flexible sigmoidoscopy emphasizes the benefits of added yield rather than the negative image of withholding of discomfort relief. The patient can choose to accept the equivalent of an unsedated colonoscopy or reject the option based on perceived discomfort during extended flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by the colonoscopist. CONCLUSION: Extended flexible sigmoidoscopy is a feasible option in carefully selected patients, fully prepared and by an experienced colonoscopist.

Cecum↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of rigid vs flexible sigmoidoscopy in detection of significant anorectal lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Sigmoidoscopy is an essential tool in colorectal clinics in the detection of anorectal lesions including rectosigmoid adenomas and carcinomas. However, rigid sigmoidoscope (RS) is still more widely used than flexible sigmoidoscope (FS) as the primary investigation, despite the fact that the latter is more comfortable to the patient and has greater diagnostic yield. Hence we wanted to compare the two modalities in terms of diagnostic use for picking up significant anorectal lesions. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients referred to the colorectal clinic who had undergone both rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy for investigation of colorectal symptoms in 2001 was done. Findings recorded during rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy including depth of insertion, site of lesion and complications were analysed. RESULTS: 152 patients underwent both rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy as part of investigation of colorectal symptoms. Of the 115 (75.6%) declared normal by RS, 39 (33.9%) had significant lesions including 7 polyps and 4 malignant lesions within 20 cm of the anal verge during FS. Of the 31 patients (20.4%) in whom RS was not helpful due to faecal loading, 15 (48.4%) had significant lesions including 4 malignancies and 1 polyp --all within 20 cm of the anal verge during FS. Only 2 polyps and 1 malignant lesion were picked up by both flexible and rigid sigmoidoscopy. There were no complications in both procedures. CONCLUSION: Since flexible sigmoidoscopy is superior to rigid sigmoidoscopy in terms of patient comfort, diagnostic value and ease of doing procedures like biopsy and polypectomy; it can be used as a front line investigation to exclude colorectal pathology in out patient clinics. The utility of rigid sigmoidoscope is in question and in view of obvious shortcomings, may be replaced by flexible sigmoidoscopy, though obvious resource constraints need to be considered.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

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↗
PubMed1998

Population based randomized study of uptake and yield of screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with screening by faecal occult blood testing.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the feasibility of mass screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy with screening by faecal occult blood testing (Haemoccult) and both tests combined. DESIGN: Patients were randomised to screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy, faecal blood testing, or both tests. The flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed by a general practitioner. SETTING: General practice. SUBJECTS: 3744 patients aged 50-75 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uptake, positive results, detection of neoplasia, complications, and recall for diagnostic colonoscopy. RESULTS: Uptake was significantly higher in the flexible sigmoidoscopy group (46.6%) than in the faecal blood test group (31.6%; P<0.001) or than in the group having both tests (30.1%; P<0.001). Telephone reminders increased uptake of sigmoidoscopy to 61.8%. In total, 1116 sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed without major complication. Polyps were found in 19. 3% (95% confidence interval 17.0% to 21.6%) but only 6.8% (5.3% to 8. 3%) had adenomas and 2.4% (1.5% to 3.3%) "high risk" adenomas. Cancer was detected in four subjects. The faecal blood test yielded positive results in 0.8% (0.2% to 1.4%) but missed at least one cancer and 30 cases of adenoma which were found by sigmoidoscopy in the combined group. Use of histological criteria-shown elsewhere to correlate with future risk of colorectal cancer-to select "positive" patients could reduce recall for diagnostic colonoscopy from about 20% to less than 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the predicted obstacles to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy are surmountable. Clear evidence relating to efficacy will be obtained only from a randomised controlled trial.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Barriers to office-based screening sigmoidoscopy: does reimbursement cover costs?

Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy may reduce mortality rates from colorectal cancer. Primary care physicians are able to provide this screening procedure, but many have been reluctant to do so, partly because of the impression that reimbursement rates are inadequate to cover physician costs. This study examines the cost of performing flexible sigmoidoscopy in a primary care practice and compares this cost with the new Medicare reimbursement rate for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Fixed and variable costs associated with the performance of office-based flexible sigmoidoscopy were derived from the published literature. The principal assumption in the analyses is that the time required to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy represents an opportunity cost because the physician could use that time to see additional patients during routine office hours. Sensitivity analyses were done across a range of estimates for the cost variables. When Medicare reimbursement rates were used, the physician's total cost for flexible sigmoidoscopy without biopsy was $86.86, which is similar to the Medicare reimbursement rate for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (code 45330, $87.84). The calculations were most sensitive to estimates of equipment cost, procedure time, number of procedures performed per year, additional malpractice coverage, and revenue generated per hour of outpatient care. The estimated cost per procedure in a screening program that includes the ability to perform biopsy is $152.93, which exceeds Medicare reimbursement rates across the range of all variables included in the sensitivity analyses. Thus, low reimbursement may limit the adoption of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without biopsy in primary care practices.

Biopsy↗
PubMed1995

A study of the safety and clinical efficacy of flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy after recent colonic surgery in 52 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the safety of lower endoscopy after colonic surgery, which has been unstudied and unknown. Endoscopy could promote suture breakdown at sites of colonic anastomoses, ostia, or repair by colonic abrasion or stretch from endoscopic intubation, torque, and insufflation. METHODS: Risks versus benefits of lower endoscopy performed within 3 wk of colonic surgery were retrospectively analyzed at five medical centers in 36 patients undergoing sigmoidoscopy and 72 age-and-sex-matched controls, and in 16 patients undergoing colonoscopy and 32 age-and-sex-matched controls. RESULTS: Sigmoidoscopy indications included rectal bleeding in 14, distal colonic obstruction in 12, and other in 10. Sigmoidoscopy provided the diagnosis in 18 (54%) of 33 cases (excluding three therapeutic sigmoidoscopies, control rate = 30%, p < 0.01, X2, including colon cancer in six and benign stricture in five. Sigmoidoscopy led to colonic surgery in nine and medical therapy changes in four. Colonoscopy indications included colonic bleeding in seven, colonic obstruction in five, and other in four. Colonoscopy provided the diagnosis in nine (56%, control rate = 56%, NS, X2). Colonoscopy led to colonic surgery in three and chemotherapy in one. Two endoscopic complications, unrelated to suture breakdown, occurred: An acutely ill patient developed hypotension during sigmoidoscopy which resolved with intravenous fluid resuscitation. A contained sigmoid diverticular perforation became a free perforation (requiring laparotomy) after colonoscopy. Both control groups had no endoscopic complications (NS, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSION: In this study, the benefits outweighed the risks of postoperative sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Clinicians should use discretion and perform colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy after colonic surgery, particularly bowel anastomosis, only for clinically important indications. Endoscopy is contraindicated when colonic wound dehiscence or bowel perforation is suspected.

Colon↗
PubMed1994

Yield of rescreening for colonic polyps using flexible sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of performing screening-flexible sigmoidoscopy 1 yr after a negative examination. METHODS: In a flexible sigmoidoscopy screening program at a chemical factory, over a period of 3 yr, 307 sigmoidoscopies were performed by a single endoscopist in workers greater than or equal to 40 yr old. Of 202 workers screened in the first 2 yr, 32% were found to have polyps (mean age, 52.9 yr). Repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy was recommended to all workers after 1 yr, and 81 complied. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SEM) time to follow-up was 17.0 +/- 0.7 months; of 69 workers who were negative on the first exam, five (7.2%) had a polyp at follow-up. Two of the five patients with polyps were under the age of 50. Of 12 workers who had polyps on the index exam and requested a repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy a yr later, four (33%) again had a polyp. Colonoscopy had been performed in the time interval between the two sigmoidoscopies in 10 of the 12 workers; four (33%) had recurrent polyps. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a significant yield of polyps (7.2%) may be found on repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy despite a negative examination within the prior 2 yr. Although the overall yield in this study population was reduced from 32% to 7% by repeat screening, this study supports older American Cancer Society guidelines i.e., to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy at 1 yr in patients whose first examination was negative. Because half of the positive workers were under age 50, this study also suggests that the American Cancer Society age cutoff may be too stringent.

Chemical Industry↗
PubMed1999

Licensure, use, and training of paramedical personnel to perform screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the state board of nursing guidelines about the performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy by nurses and to determine the current use and training of paramedical personnel in flexible sigmoidoscopy at gastroenterology fellowship programs in the United States. METHODS: Separate one-page questionnaires were sent to state boards of nursing and directors of endoscopy at gastroenterology fellowship programs in the United States. RESULTS: Twenty percent (10 of 50) of state boards of nursing explicitly approve the performance of sigmoidoscopy by registered nurses, and 50% (25 of 50) explicitly approve the practice by nurse practitioners. Forty-six percent (23 of 50) of state boards of nursing have no written policy but allow nurses to use a "decision making model" to determine whether the performance of sigmoidoscopy is allowed. Fifteen percent (24 of 164) of gastroenterology fellowship programs in the United States use paramedical personnel to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy. Sixty-three percent (15 of 24) of these programs started since 1995, and 67% (16 of 24) require that the paramedical personnel perform 50 or more supervised sigmoidoscopies during their training. Forty-five percent (5 of 11) of programs with physician assistants/nurse practitioners use these personnel to perform colonoscopy or endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are allowed to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in most states based on current state board of nursing guidelines. The use of paramedical personnel to perform endoscopic procedures is increasing rapidly.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Fecal occult blood and flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: modeling the impact on colonoscopy requirements and cancer detection rates.

AIM: The aim of this study was to estimate the colonoscopy requirements and the likely impact of fecal occult blood and flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on the detection of colorectal cancer by using previously published data. METHODS: Fecal occult blood and flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programs were applied to the 2.04 million subjects aged 50-65 years, at a participation rate of 40%. The following strategies were evaluated: Fecal occult blood testing with colonoscopy follow up of all positive tests; flexible sigmoidoscopy with colonoscopy follow up of all adenomatous polyps; and flexible sigmoidoscopy with colonoscopy follow up of all adenomatous polyps > 10 mm in size. RESULTS: The fecal occult blood program detected 5.6% of all colorectal cancer cases at a rate of 2,914 colonoscopies/percentage of detection of colorectal cancer. The flexible sigmoidoscopy program detected 14% of all colorectal cancer cases at a rate of 8,160 colonoscopies/percentage of detection of colorectal cancer. The flexible sigmoidoscopy program with follow up of adenomatous polyps > 10 mm in size detected 13% of all colorectal cancer cases at a rate of 1,230 colonoscopies/percentage of detection of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible sigmoidoscopy screening followed by colonoscopic follow up of adenomatous polyps > 10 mm in size is the most efficient screening strategy in terms of colonoscopies generated and cases of colorectal cancer detected.

Adenomatous Polyps↗
PubMed1999

Implementation of on-site screening sigmoidoscopy positively influences utilization by primary care providers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sigmoidoscopy is an effective screening strategy for colorectal cancer that is not widely used by primary care providers. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of "academic detailing" in the form of an outreach educational seminar combined with implementation of on-site sigmoidoscopy services performed by university-based gastroenterologists on provider compliance. METHODS: A controlled trial was initiated at 9 urban neighborhood health centers, including 4 intervention and 5 comparison sites. Baseline data on provider attitudes and practice patterns were collected using a validated questionnaire. Outcome measures included a year 1 follow-up survey of provider attitudes and quarterly review of screening sigmoidoscopy referrals using appointment logs to assess utilization. RESULTS: Overall self-reported compliance rates for screening sigmoidoscopy increased by 36% (baseline, 24%; year 1, 60%) for the intervention group vs. only 7% (baseline, 19%; year 1, 26%) for the comparison group (P = 0. 001). When stratified by site, compliance rates increased at each intervention site (range, 7%-92%) but at only 2 control sites. Use of screening sigmoidoscopy was also significantly greater at the intervention sites (47% vs. 4%; P </= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An outreach educational seminar combined with implementation of on-site sigmoidoscopy services is an effective strategy for enhancing provider utilization of screening sigmoidoscopy.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

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↗