4.6 Article

Routine rectal retroflexion during colonoscopy has a low yield for neoplasia

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 42, Pages 6503-6505

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.6503

Keywords

Colonoscopy; Colorectal polyps; Retroflexion; Rectum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To investigate the value of retroflexion in detecting neoplasia in the distal rectum. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study performed in an academic endoscopy unit. Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy had careful forward viewing of the distal rectum by retroflexion. Of 1502 procedures, 1076 (72%) procedures were performed with a 1400 angle of view colonoscope and 426 (28%) were performed with a 1700 angle of view colonoscope. The outcome measurement was the yield of neoplasia in the distal rectum detected by forward viewing vs retroflexion. RESULTS: A total of 1502 patients, including 767 (51%) females and 735 (49%) males, with mean age of 58.8 +/- 12.5 years were enrolled. Retroflexion was successful in 1411 (93.9%) patients, unsuccessful or not performed because the rectum appeared narrow in 91 (6.1%). Forty patients had a polyp detected in the distal rectal mucosa. Thirty-three were visible in both the forward and retroflexed view (25 hyperplastic, 8 adenomatous). Seven polyps were visualized only by retroflexion (6 hyperplastic sessile polyps, one 4 mm sessile tubular adenoma). There was no significant difference in information added by retroflexion with 1400 vs 1700 angle of view instrument. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest reported evaluation of retroflexion in the rectum. Routine rectal retroflexion did not detect clinically important neoplasia after a careful forward examination of the rectum to the dentate line. Since retroflexion has risks and may cause discomfort, the use of routine retroflexion should be at the discretion of the endoscopist. (c) 2008 The WJG Press. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available