We have located links that may give you full text access.
Sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy: a survey of current UK practice.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology 1996 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To establish the pattern of practice of sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy in the UK, and to estimate the rate of occurrence of important complications.
DESIGN: Postal questionnaire enquiring about practice in the previous 2 years.
SUBJECTS: Consultant members of the British Society of Gastroenterology.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bleeding or perforation following sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy.
RESULTS: Completed replies were received from 277 consultants, giving a response rate of 84%. Of the sigmoidoscopies performed, 71% were rigid and the remainder fibreoptic flexible sigmoidoscopy (FOS). The complication rate after sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy was 0.01%. Perforation was significantly more common in FOS than in rigid sigmoidoscopy (eight in 134,482 sigmoidoscopies versus five in 328,815, chi2 = 5.18, P < 0.05). The distance from anal margin and wall of biopsy did not influence perforation rates. Significant bleeding was similar with both techniques (eight in 134,482 versus 35 in 328,815, chi2 = 2.27, NS).
CONCLUSION: Rigid sigmoidoscopy is still more widely used than FOS in the UK, and is probably safer. Complications resulting from rectal biopsy are uncommon but perforation occurs more frequently with FOS than with rigid sigmoidoscopy. The site of biopsy appears to be unimportant.
DESIGN: Postal questionnaire enquiring about practice in the previous 2 years.
SUBJECTS: Consultant members of the British Society of Gastroenterology.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bleeding or perforation following sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy.
RESULTS: Completed replies were received from 277 consultants, giving a response rate of 84%. Of the sigmoidoscopies performed, 71% were rigid and the remainder fibreoptic flexible sigmoidoscopy (FOS). The complication rate after sigmoidoscopy and rectal biopsy was 0.01%. Perforation was significantly more common in FOS than in rigid sigmoidoscopy (eight in 134,482 sigmoidoscopies versus five in 328,815, chi2 = 5.18, P < 0.05). The distance from anal margin and wall of biopsy did not influence perforation rates. Significant bleeding was similar with both techniques (eight in 134,482 versus 35 in 328,815, chi2 = 2.27, NS).
CONCLUSION: Rigid sigmoidoscopy is still more widely used than FOS in the UK, and is probably safer. Complications resulting from rectal biopsy are uncommon but perforation occurs more frequently with FOS than with rigid sigmoidoscopy. The site of biopsy appears to be unimportant.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app