HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Knox, L. Articles by Lane, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Knox, L. Articles by Lane, C.

A Comparison of Unsedated Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the Family Medicine Setting: An LA Net Study

Department of Family Medicine (LK, RGH), University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Department of Preventative Medicine, Biostatistics (CL), University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Lyndee Knox, PhD, University of Southern California, Department of Family Medicine, 1420 San Pablo St., PMB-B205, Los Angeles, CA 90033 (E-mail: knox{at}usc.edu)

Background: Colonoscopy visualizes more of the colon than flexible sigmoidoscopy. This study compares the outcomes of an unsedated modified colon endoscopy (MCE) with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) in family medicine practice.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of existing clinical data to compare outcomes for 48 patients undergoing MCE and 35 patients undergoing FS at 3 family medicine practices in Los Angeles. Outcomes of interest included completion rates, number of complications, depth reached, anatomic site visualized, and information about the number and nature of clinical findings.

Results: No significant differences were found between MCE and FS regarding completion rates (83.3% vs 75%, respectively). Expected statistically significant differences were found between the 2 procedures in the anatomic site visualized (P < .01) and depth reached (P < .01). Clinical pathologies were identified in 58% of MCE patients and 37% of FS patients. Four adenocarcinomas were identified in the MCE group in the proximal region of the colon that could not have been detected by FS.

Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that MCE can be an acceptable alternative to FS in office settings for colorectal cancer screening.