Rigid Sigmoidoscopic Examination, an Investigation Down but Not Out: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience on 9418 Patients

ABSTRACT

Background: Rigid sigmoidoscopy (RS) in the present era of flexible sigmoidoscopies is falling out of favor although it continues to be used in some centers as an outpatient (OP) department procedure. Aims: This study aims to determine the utility of RS for diagnosis of rectosigmoidal pathologies in the OP setting with emphasis on neoplastic lesions. Methods: We retrospectively studied the RS records and histopathology reports (HPRs) of 5 years (July 2013–June 2018) done in the Department of Gastroenterology at Medical College Calicut. Results: During the study period, 9418 RS examinations were done, and a total of 6921 abnormalities were picked up, giving a diagnostic yield of 73.5%. Most common indication was bleeding per rectum (PR) (51%), followed by constipation (29%). The most common lesion found was hemorrhoids 39.8% followed by proctitis 13.7%, neoplasms 9.7%, and others 10.3% while 26.5% studies were normal. HPRs showed 7.7% to be malignant, 5.8% were adenoma, 12.2% were inflammatory bowel disease ulcerative colitis (IBD UC), 2.2% were solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, 1.2% nonspecific colitis, 1.7% nonneoplastic polyps, 2.7% were normal, and 1.4% were inconclusive. Of the 4812 patients with complaints of bleeding PR, 4739 (98.5%) had a diagnosis after RS, of which hemorrhoids (72.7%) was the most common cause followed by proctitis (14.2%), neoplasm (9%), and others (4.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of RS in detecting neoplasia was 98.2%, 96.8%, 66.1%, and 99.9%, respectively, when HPR was gold standard. RS was found to be effective for assessing activity in IBD UC. Conclusion: RS is a simple, cheap, and effective tool for diagnosing various rectosigmoid pathologies. RS can be used as an effective screening test for rectosigmoid pathologies, especially neoplasia and IBD UC.

KEYWORDS

Rectosigmoid cancers - rigid sigmoidoscopy - screening

• REFERENCES

• 1 India against Cancer. Colorectal Cancer Risk Factors, Prevention, Pap Smear, Diagnosis, Treatment. India against Cancer. 2018 Available from http://cancerindia.org.in/colorectal–cancer/. [Last accessed on 2017 Aug 24]
• 2 Levin B. Screening sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 700-2
• 3 Goldsmith O, Frankl H, Gerety D, Masse C, Colbert P, Sanders P. Fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in an asymptomatic population (Abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 1977; 23: 228
• 4 Bolt RJ. Sigmoidoscopy in detection and diagnosis in the asymptomatic individual. Cancer 1971; 28: 121-2
• 5 Gilbertsen VA. Proctosigmoidoscopy and polypectomy in reducing the incidence of rectal cancer. Cancer 1974; 34: 936-9
• 6 Winawer SJ, Leidner SD, Boyle C, Kurtz RC. Comparison of flexible sigmoidoscopy with other diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis of rectocolon neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci 1979; 24: 277-81
• 7 Khan T, Hafiz A, Nazir B, Shaheen N, Yasir M, Khan H. A retrospective study of sigmoidoscopic examination with rigid sigmoidoscope in a medical school sigmoidoscopy center. J Islam Med Assoc North Am 2008; 40: 76-81
• 8 Vipond MN, Moshakis V. Four-year evaluation of a direct-access fibreoptic sigmoidoscopy service: Authors’ reply. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996; 78: 397-98
• 9 Vellacott KD, Hardcastle JD. An evaluation of flexible fibreoptic sigmoidoscopy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981; 283: 1583-6
• 10 Winnan G, Berci G, Panish J, Talbot TM, Overholt BF, McCallum RW. et al. Superiority of the flexible to the rigid sigmoidoscope in routine proctosigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1011-2
• 11 Vellacott KD, Roe AM, Mortensen NJ. An evaluation of a direct access flexible fibreoptic sigmoidoscopy service. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1987; 69: 149-52
• 12 Kalra L, Price WR, Jones BJ, Hamlyn AN. Open access fibresigmoidoscopy: A comparative audit of efficacy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296: 1095-6
• 13 Mathew J, Shankar P, Aldean IM. Audit on flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding in a district general hospital: Are we over–loading the resources?. Postgrad Med J 2004; 80: 38-40
• 14 Read TE, Read JD, Butterly LF. Importance of adenomas 5 mm or less in diameter that are detected by sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 8-12
• 15 Detsky AS. Screening for colon cancer – Can we afford colonoscopy?. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 607-8