The value of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the evaluation of rectal bleeding in the young
Keywords:
Rectal bleeding, Flexible sigmoidoscopy, Polyps, CarcinomaAbstract
Background:Rectal bleeding is a frequent symptom in the young and often over- investigated. We reviewed the diagnostic yield of flexible sigmoidoscopy in younger patients in a district general hospital in UK.
Methods:All consecutive flexible sigmoidoscopies carried out between 2010-2013 for bright red rectal bleeding in patients younger than 45 years were analysed. Referrals included direct access, two-week waits, urgent out-patient and in-patient referrals. Routine and follow-up cases were excluded from the review. The extent of examination, diagnosis and procedure related complications were reviewed.
Results:516 procedures were carried out in the study period with a mean age of 34 (range 17-44). There was no endoscopy-related complications. 8 procedures were incomplete due to poor bowel preparation and 39 (6.7%) had polyps (31 rectal, 8 sigmoid). On histology, 9 (1.7%) were adenomatous with two larger than 1 cm, 2 had no polyp tissue, one rectal carcinoid and two carcinoma (0.4%) (rectum and sigmoid). The rest were hyperplastic polyps.
Conclusions:Prevalence of size significant polyps and advanced adenoma is very low (1-2%) in younger patients. A flexible sigmoidoscopy for bright red rectal bleeding alone in younger patients with no associated symptoms and an identifiable anorectal cause for bleeding by proctoscopy or rigid sigmoidoscopy is a huge strain on resources and cost limiting especially with a polyp incidence of 1.7% and carcinoma detection of 0.4%.
Keywords: Rectal bleeding, Flexible sigmoidoscopy, Polyps, Carcinoma
Metrics
References
Tally NJ, Jones M. Self-reported rectal bleeding in a United States community. Prevalence, risk factors, and health care seeking. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2179-83.
Penner RM, Majumdar SR. Approach to minimal bright red bleeding per rectum. In: Rose BD eds. A Book. Vol. 93. Waltham: UpToDate; 2007
Cancer Research UK. Bowel cancer incidence statistics, 2014. Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/bowel/incidence/uk-bowel-cancer-incidence-statistics. Accessed 11 June 2014.
Martha A. Ferguson. Office evaluation of rectal bleeding. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2005 Nov;18(4):249-54.
The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Commissioning guide for rectal bleeding, 2013. Available at: http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/surgeons/surgical-standards/docs/rectal-bleeding-draft-commissioning-guidance.
Crosland A, Jones R. Rectal bleeding: prevalence and consultation behaviour. Br Med J. 1995;311:486-8.
Cade D, Selvachandran S, Hodder R, Ballal M. Prediction of colorectal cancer by consultation questionnaire. Lancet. 2002;360:2080.
Wauters H, Van Casteren V, Buntinx F. Rectal bleeding and colorectal cancer in general practice: diagnostic study. Br Med J. 2000;321:998-9.
Chung SJ, Kim YS, Yang SY, Song JH, Park MJ, Kim JS, et al. Prevalence and risk of colorectal adenoma in asymptomatic Koreans aged 40-49 years undergoing screening colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(3):519-25.
Brenner H, Althenhofen L, Hoffmeister M. Sex, age, and birth cohort effects in colorectal neoplasms: a cohort analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun;150(11):697-70.
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.
Waugh N, Cummins E, Royle P, Kandala N-B, Shyangdan D, Arasaradnam R, et al. Faecal calprotectin testing for differentiating amongst inflammatory and non-inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(55):xv-xix, 1-211.
Helfand M, Marton K, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Sox HC Jr. History of visible rectal bleeding in a primary care population. JAMA. 1997;277:44-8.
Fitjen G, Starmans R, Muris JW, Schouten HJ, Blijham GH, Knottnerus JA. Predictive value of signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer in patients with rectal bleeding in general practice. Fam Pract. 1995;12:279-86.
