Original Article

Preferable Colonic Investigations for Isolated Abdominal Pain

Authors: Christian P. Selinger, MD, MRCP, Javaid Iqbal, MBBS, MRCP, Robert P. Willert, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, Simon S. Campbell, MBChB, MRCP, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Isolated abdominal pain is seen as a poor indication for colonic investigations. The yield of serious pathology detected by optical colonoscopy (OC) has differed greatly in published series. This study aims to establish the yield of colonic investigations for isolated abdominal pain.


Methods: A retrospective analysis of the endoscopy database was undertaken on all OCs performed from 2000 to 2008. The yield of OCs for detection of pathology (polyps, cancers, and inflammatory bowel disease) was compared for the symptoms of abdominal pain, chronic diarrhea, or anemia. Data on computed tomographic colonographies (CTC), performed for isolated abdominal pain in 2008, were used to compare the yield of CTCs and OCs.


Results: Of the 8564 OCs and 525 CTCs performed, 5.4% and 8.2% were undertaken for isolated abdominal pain, respectively. The yield of OCs for overall pathology detection was not significantly different for abdominal pain (23.87%), compared to other indications (20.34–24.85%). The yield of pathology detection was not significantly different for CTC (20.93%) and OC. Colonic polyps were the most common pathology (OC 16.05%, CTC 18.6%).


Conclusion: Colonic investigations undertaken for isolated abdominal pain had a high yield of incidental colonic pathology. The detection of polyps could be beneficial, but it does not explain the symptoms. CTC offers a less invasive way of detecting colonic pathology in such patients, while maintaining the same yield. If CTC is used as a first line of investigation, it could spare 75% of patients the colonoscopy procedure.


Key Points


* Colonic investigations undertaken for isolated abdominal pain have a high yield of incidental colonic pathology.


* Colonic investigations will not explain isolated abdominal pain in 92% of patients and pathology requiring further medical attention is only found in 24% of patients.


* Optical colonoscopy (OC) is generally perceived as more invasive to patients.


* Though computer tomographic colonography (CTC) exposes patients to a small risk from radiation, it is considered less invasive, and requires no sedation.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Kay L, Jørgensen T. Abdominal symptom associations in a longitudinal study. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22:1093–1100.
 
2. Talley NJ, Zinsmeister AR, Van Dyke C, et al. Epidemiology of colonic symptoms and the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1991;101:927–934.
 
3. Chey WE, Nojkov B, Rubenstein JH, et al. The yield of colonoscopy in patients with non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome: results from a prospective, controlled US trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:859–865.
 
4. Al-Shamali MA, Kalaoui M, Hasan F, et al. Colonoscopy: evaluating indications and diagnostic yield. Ann Saudi Med 2001:21;304–307.
 
5. Neugut AI, Garbowski GC, Wave JD, et al. Diagnostic yield of colorectal neoplasia with colonoscopy for abdominal pain, change in bowel habits, and rectal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1179–1183.
 
6. Powell N, Dunn J, Treibel TA, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy for patients with isolated abdominal pain [abstract]. Gastrointest Endoscopy 2008;67:AB322.
 
7. Yee KC, Cello JP, Ostroff J. Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for the evaluation of isolated abdominal pain [abstract]. Gastrointest Endoscopy 2004;59:136.
 
8. Lin OS. Computed tomographic colonography: hope or hype? World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:915–920.
 
9. Mulhall BP, Veerappan GR, Jackson JL. Meta-analysis: computed tomographic colonography. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:635–650.
 
10. Morson BC, Whiteway JE, Jones EA, et al. Histopathology and prognosis of malignant colorectal polyps treated by endoscopic polypectomy. Gut 1984;25:437–444.
 
11. Eckardt VF, Fuchs M, Kanzler G, et al. Follow-up of patients with polyps containing severe atypia and invasive carcinoma. Compliance, recurrence, and survival. Cancer 1988;61:2552–2557.
 
12. Olsen HW, Lawrence WA, Snook CW, et al. Risk factors and screening techniques in 500 patients with benign and malignant colon polyps. An urban community experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:222–227.
 
13. Atkin WS, Saunders BP; British Society for Gastroenterology; Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland. Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 2002;51:V6–V9.
 
14. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al. Results of screening colonoscopies among persons 40 to 49 years of age. N Engl J Med 2002;46:1781–1785.
 
15. Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 2005;129:328–337.