Aim To evaluate the pattern of indications and a spectrum of colonic pathology, and to determine appropriateness of indications for colonoscopy in order to improve patient selection for colonoscopy. Methods This retrospective study includes 294 patients who were referred to the Gastroenterology Department from a primary care physician in order to approach endoscopic examination. Study data included patients’ anamnestic data (comorbidities, positive family history, performed radiological examinations) an indication for the procedure, and colonoscopy findings. Results Haematochezia was confirmed in 186 (63.26%), positive radiologic finding in183 (62.24%) and anaemia in 157 (53.40%) patients. Adenoma and colorectal carcinoma were detected in 40 (13.6%) and 53 (18%) patients, respectively. A significant association between haematochezia and colorectal neoplasm was confirmed (p=0.019), haematochezia and inflammatory bowel disease (p=0.027), and between radiological finding and colorectal neoplasm (p=0.018). There was no significant association between anaemia and any of the colonoscopic findings. According to EPAGE II criteria indications were appropriate in 187 (63.6%), uncertain in 67 (22.8%) and inappropriate in 40 (13.6%) patients. Conclusion This study confirmed a slightly larger number of uncertain and inappropriate indications for colonoscopy compared to other studies that examined indications for colonoscopy, which can be attributed to a high number of patients with functional bowel disorders.
Gimeno-Garcia A, Quintero E. Colonoscopy appropriateness: really needed or a waste of time? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;94–101.
2.
Akere A, Oke T, Otegbayo J. Colonoscopy at a tertiary healthcare facility in Southwest Nigeria: Spectrum of indications and colonic abnormalities. Ann Afr Med. 2016;109–13.
3.
Soncini M, Stasi C, Satta P, Milazzo G, Bianco M, Leandrog, et al. IBS clinical management in Italy: The AIGO survey. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;782–9.
4.
Shaheen N, Fennerty M, Bergman J. Less Is More: A minimalist approach to endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2018;1993–2003.
5.
Samarakoon Y, Gunawardena N, Pathirana A, Hewage S. Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;72.
6.
Jacob K, Dennis P, Charles B, Richard B, James A, Mark T. Diagnostic yield of gastrointestinal endoscopy in North West Region Cameroon and trends in diagnosis over time. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;178.
7.
Bohara T, Laudari U, Thapa A, Rupakheti S, Joshi M. Appropriateness of indications of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and its association with positive finding. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2018;504–9.
8.
Marzo-Castillejo M, Mascort A, Cunillera J, Saladich O, Nieto R, Pineiro R, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy requests according to EPAGE-II in the Spanish region of Catalonia. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;154.
9.
Standards, Early D, Ben-Menachem T, Decker G, Evans J, Fanelli R, et al. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;1127–31.
10.
Cahyono S, Bayupurnama P, Ratnasari N, Triwikatmani C, Indrarti F, Maduseno S, et al. Evaluating indications and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in Sardjito general hospital. J Int Med Acta Int. 2014;51–6.
11.
Austin H, Henley S, King J, Richardson L. Eheman C. Changes in colorectal cancer incidence rates in young and older adults in the United States: what does it tell us about screening. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;191–201.
12.
Eskeland S, Dalen E, Sponheim J, Lind E, Brunborg C, De Lange T. European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy -a quality control study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;492–500.
13.
Dakubo J, Seshie B, Ankrah L. Utilization and diagnostic yield of large bowel endoscopy at Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital. J Med Biomed Sci. 2014;6–13.
14.
Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J, Rosch T, Pox C, Stock C, et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German Screening Colonoscopy Program. Gastroenterology. 2015;356–66.
15.
Karsenti D, Tharsis G, Burtin P, Venezia F, Tordjman G, Gillet A, et al. Adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates increase from 45 years of age. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;447–56.
16.
Ono M, Kato M, Miyamoto S, Tsuda M, Mizushima T, Ono S, et al. Multicenter observational study on functional bowel disorders diagnosed using Rome III diagnostic criteria in Japan. J Gastroenterol. 2018;916–23.
17.
Wang X, Luscombe G, Boyd C, Kellow J. Abraham S. Functional gastrointestinal disorders in eating disorder patients: Altered distribution and predictors using ROME III compared to ROME II criteria. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;16293–9.
18.
Long Y, Huang Z, Deng Y, Chu H, Zheng X, Yang J, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for functional bowel disorders in South China: a population based study using the Rome III criteria. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;12897.
19.
Olivo R, Ratnayake S. Colorectal cancer in young patients: a retrospective cohort study in a single institution. ANZ J Surg. 2019;905–7.
20.
Ashktorab H, Vilmenay K, Brim H, Laiyemo A, Kibreab A, Nouraie M. Colorectal cancer in young African Americans: is it time to revisit guidelines and prevention? Dig Dis Sci. 2016;3026–30.
21.
Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Shah U, Skinner K, Brown J, Hamilton W, et al. Is whole-colon investigation by colonoscopy, computerized tomography colonography or barium enema necessary for all patients with colorectal cancer symptoms, and for which patients would flexible sigmoidoscopy suffice? A retrospective cohort study. Health TechnolAssess. 2017;1–80.
22.
Cross A, Wooldrage K, Robbins E, Packk, Brownjp, Hamilton W, et al. Whole-colon investigation vs. flexible sigmoidoscopy for suspected colorectal cancer based on presenting symptoms and signs: a multicentre cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2019;154–64.
23.
Halligan S, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K, Wardle J, Wagner V, Lilford C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials). Health Technol Assess. 2015;1–134.
24.
Andújar X, Sainz E, Galí A, Loras C, Aceituno M, Espinós J, et al. Inappropriateness rate for colonoscopy indications in an open access unit. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;313–9.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
