Success Rate of Colonoscopies and Reasons That Prevent Procedure Completion - Retrospective Study

Open access


Background. Colonoscopy is a common performed procedure in Gastroenterology, and it’s widely used for diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of a wide range of conditions and symptoms. Properly performed, it’s generally safe, more accurate than a virtual colonoscopy and well-tolerated by patients. The completion of a colonoscopy is defined by cecal intubation with the visualization of colonic mucosa and distal terminal ileum when it’s possible.

Patients and methods. We reviewed retrospectively all consecutive endoscopies database of the lower digestive tract, done over a period from 2014-2017 in our clinic. The recommended completion based on the latest guidelines ranges from 90-95% completion rate according to the indication.

Results. 11214 consecutive colonoscopies were done. Overall cecal intubation was successful in 9456 procedures (87.3%). If we exclude the interventional procedures (414 procedures), where cecal intubation was not necessary, the main reasons of non-intubation were due to intolerance of the patients (388 patients), followed on the second place by patients with obstructive cancer (299 patients). The presence of diverticulosis, poor preparation for colonoscopy and post-surgical adhesions were significant findings in non-successful procedures.

Conclusions. In normal daily practice, colonoscopy is completed in 88.01% of the procedures but we think that this result will stimulate the efforts to incorporate more quality measures and time in our endoscopy laboratory.

1. Colonoscopy: basic principles and novel techniques; Yark Hazewinkel and Evelien Dekker Hazewinkel, Y. & Dekker, E. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 8, 554564 (2011); published online 6 September 2011; doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2011.141

2. Technological advances for improving adenoma detection rates: The changing face of colonoscopy; SauidIshaq, Keith Siau Elizabeth Harrison, Gian Eugenio Tontini, Arthur Hoffman, Seth Gross, Ralf Kiesslich, Helmut Neumann Digestive and Liver Disease Volume 49, Issue 7, July 2017, Pages 721-727

3. New endoscopes and add-on devices to improve colonoscopy performance; Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Georgios Tziatzios, George D Dimitriadis, Konstantinos Triantafyllou; World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2017; 23(21): 3784-3796Published online Jun 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i21.3784

4. Effect of quality of bowel preparation on quality indicators of adenoma detection rates and colonoscopy completion rates; Tarun Rai Udayakumar Navaneethan Tushar Gohel Amareshwar PoduguPrashanthi N. Thota Ravi P. Kiran Rocio Lopez Madhusudhan R. Sanaka; Gastroenterology Report, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1 May 2016, Pages 148153

5. Colonoscopy: Quality Indicators; Joseph C Anderson and Lynn F Butterly; Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2015 Feb; 6(2): e77.

6. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(9):9648. [PubMed]

7. Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S, Jobling C, Moussa ME, Bartram CI, et al. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women? Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43(2 Pt 1):1246. [PubMed]

8. Church JM. Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not? Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89(4):55660. [PubMed]

9. Galandiuk S. Colonoscopy to the cecum. Semin Colon Rectal Surg. 1992;3:1823.

10. Waye JDBM. Total colonoscopy: is it always possible? Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37(2):1524.[PubMed]

11. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Johnston TK. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:307314. [PubMed]

12. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s.Marshall JB, Barthel JS Gastrointest Endosc. 1993 Jul-Aug; 39(4):518-20.

13. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?, Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S, Jobling C, Moussa ME, Bartram CI, Williams CB, Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Feb; 43(2 Pt 1):124-6. [PubMed]

14. Impact of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery on colonoscopy outcomes. Lee SK, Kim TI, Shin SJ, Kim BC, Kim WH, J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006 Sep; 40(8):711-6. [PubMed]

15. Colorectal anatomy in adults at computed tomography colonography: normal distribution and the effect of age, sex, and body mass index. Khashab MA, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Rex DK Endoscopy. 2009 Aug; 41(8):674-8.

16. Patient factors predicting the completion of sedation-free colonoscopy. Tsai MS, Su YH, Liang JT, Lai HS, Lee PH, Hepatogastroenterology. 2008 Sep-Oct; 55(86-87):1606-8.

17. Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G, Minoli G, Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO). Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May; 103(5):1122-30. [PubMed]

18. Prospective, randomized trial comparing sodium phosphate solution with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage for colonoscopy preparation. Marshall JB, Pineda JJ, Barthel JS, King PD Gastrointest Endosc. 1993 Sep-Oct; 39(5):631-4. [PubMed] [Ref list]

19. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized prospective trail comparing sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol in a predominantly elderly population. Thomson A, Naidoo P, Crotty B, J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996 Feb; 11(2):103-7. [PubMed] [Ref list]

20. Patient factors influencing the completion rate in colonoscopy. Dafnis G, Granath F, Påhlman L, Ekbom A, Blomqvist P Dig Liver Dis. 2005 Feb; 37(2):113-8.

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 37 37 14
PDF Downloads 25 25 7