4.6 Article

Routine rectal retroflexion during colonoscopy has a low yield for neoplasia

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 14, 期 42, 页码 6503-6505

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.6503

关键词

Colonoscopy; Colorectal polyps; Retroflexion; Rectum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据