Do We Have a Good Patient's Position for Sigmoidoscopy?

Sigmoidscopy is thought to be one of the basest and most essential tools for evaluation of colorectal patient because it could be performed in an out patient clinic with only minimal bowel preparation. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the patient's best position for sigmoidoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 4, 1997 and April 18, 1997, all patients who visited the colorectal clinic at the Dept. of Surgery, Korea Veterans Hospital were alternately underwent sigmoidoscopy in these four different positions: supine(S), left lateral(L), right lateral(R), and jack-knife(J). Sigmoidocopy was routinely performed for all patients who had lower gastrointestinal problems and was done by two well traind surgeons who had performed more than 100 sigmoidoscopies previously to this study, The patients who could not be tolerate insertion of the total length (60 cm) of the sigmoidoscope due to poor bowel preparation and/or complete obstruction by a mass were excluded. We evaluated the patient's complaints according to minimal, moderate, and severe discomfort and time between start and complete insertion of the 60 cm length of the sigmoidoscope. Statistical analysis was performed by an appropriate Anova test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were no differences among these four groups relative to age(5; 58.0+/-12.7, L; 64.3+/-10.0, R; 62.0+/-10.1, J; 56.0+/-12.9), gender(5; 76%, L; 70%, R; 72%, J, 83%,male ratio), degree of discomfort (mild: 42.9% (5), 50% (L), 33.3%(R), 66.7%(J), moderate: 42.9%(5), 34.6%(L),25%(R), 13.3%(J), severe: 14.3%(5), 15.4%(L), 41.7%(R), 20%(J)) and duration of insertion of the sigmoidoscope(5; 264.4 +/-192.9, L; 226.5 +/-267, R; 301.6+/-361.3, J; 202.5 +/-117.8 seconds). Also, there were no statistical significances between the two groups according to the surgeon who performed the procedure. CONCLUSION: The best position for sigmoidoscopy does not depend on the patient's position. Therefore, allowing the patient to change his position during the procedure would be the best way for an easy and comfortable sigmoidscopy.

Can We Predict the Severity of Fecal Incontinence by Preoperative Physiologic

Many kinds of different treatment options for fecal incontinence such as biofeedback therapy, anterior or posterior sphincteroplasty, pelvic floor repair, gracilis or gluteus muscle transposition have been introduced. However, appropriate indications for these treatment options have not yet been delineated up to now. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to access the preoperative severity of fecal incontinence by physiologic tests to give an idea that indications of appropriate selection criteria and parameters for assess the outcome could be simultaneously considered by preoperatively objective physiologic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 3, 1997 to, August 1, 1997 all patients with fecal incontinence who visited colorectal clinic in the Department of Surgery, Korea Veterans Hospital, were classified into two groups according to the severity of fecal incontinence (0~20): Group I (1~9), Group II (10~20) and compared them with the results of physiologic tests: anorectal manometry, endorectal ultrasound (ERU), cinedefecography, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML). Statistical analysis was performed by Student's-t test, and Chi-square test and p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The number of GI was 25, and GII was 22. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age (GI: 57.7+/-14.5, GII: 61.4+/-14.0years), gender (male: female, 19:6, 16:6), cause (neurogenic; 11/25 (GI),7/22(GII), postanal surgery; 6/25,6/22) obstetric trauma (2/25, 2/22), anal trauma (1/25, 1/22) diabetes melitus (1/25, 2/22), rectal prolapse (2/25, 1/22), and others (2/25, 3/22), duration of fecal incontinence (64.4+/-82.2, 48.7+/-65.3 months), high pressure zone (3.3+/-1.7, 3.5+/-1.4 cm), mean resting pressure (50.5+/-27.0, 51.9+/-18.7 cm H2O), maximal resting pressure (88.4+/-50.6, 89.4+/-41.8 cm), maximal squeezing pressure (150.6+/-71.0, 129.7+/-59.5 cm H2O), rectoanal inhibitatory reflex (13/21, 8/21 positive), sensitivity (37.5+/-15.2, 41.8+/-29.0 cc), compliance (19.0+/-14.5, 21.4+/-39.4 cc/cm H2O) in anorectal manometric findings, anal sphincter defect (13/21, 15/22 positive), size of defect (60+/-26.30degrees, 71 +/-30.8degrees/360degrees), thickness of the external anal sphincter (3.46+/-0.78, 3.84 +/-1.02 cm), thickness of internal anal sphincter (1.58+/-0.79, 1.74+/-0.81 cm) in ERU, anorectal angle in rest (85.2+/-28.0degrees, 97+/-22.9degrees), squeeze (72+/-27.1degrees, 82 +/-19.7degrees), push (100+/-43.9degrees, 117.9+/-34.5degrees), length of perineal descent in rest (3.7+/-1.2, 3.6+/-1.7 cm), squeeze (2.9+/-1.5, 2.7+/-1.5 cm), push (7.9+/-3.5, 6.6+/-2.6 cm) in cinedefecography. However, rectal capacity in manometry (212.5+/-99.9, 155+/-51.5 cc, p<0.05), right PNTML (1.73+/-0.39, 2.71+/-0.83 ms, p<0.001), and left PNTML (1.83+/-0.43, 2.94+/-0.80 ms, p<0.001) were significantly increased in GII compare to those of GI. CONCLUSION: As the severity of fecal incontinence was increased, rectal capacity, right and, left PNTML were increased.