4.5 Article

History of Hysterectomy: A Significant Problem for Colonoscopists That Is Not Present in Patients Who Have Had Sigmoid Colectomy

Journal

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
Volume 53, Issue 7, Pages 1055-1060

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d569cc

Keywords

Colonoscopy; Hysterectomy; Sigmoidectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: During colonoscopy, it is often difficult to traverse the sigmoid colon in patients who have had a hysterectomy, presumably due to postsurgical pelvic adhesions. We performed this study to document this difficulty and to determine whether sigmoid colectomy prevents it. METHODS: Data were acquired from a single endoscopist's prospective database. Colonoscopies performed in women were grouped according to history of hysterectomy and/or sigmoid colectomy. Groups were compared for colonoscopy completion rate, medication used, and time of examination. Participation of fellows and rate of complications were recorded. Patients with a history of abdominal-perineal resection of the rectum were excluded. RESULTS: From 1989 to 2006, a total of 4116 colonoscopies were performed in women: 993 had undergone hysterectomy (24.1%), of whom 108 (10.9%) had also undergone sigmoid colectomy. There were 3123 exams in woman who had their uterus (75.9%); 320 (10.2%) had undergone sigmoid colectomy. Patients who still had a sigmoid colon but had a history of hysterectomy had significantly lower colonoscopy completion rates (89.2%) and significantly longer mean examination time (28.9 +/- 12.3 minutes), and more of them required sedation with benzodiazepines (88.7%) than the other groups (P < .05). Fellow participation increased time of colonoscopy and complications were more frequent in patients with hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Posthysterectomy adhesions to the sigmoid colon make colonoscopy more difficult and more painful. These adverse effects are not present in hysterectomized women who have undergone sigmoid resection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available