Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reliability of cecal landmarks during colonoscopy

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Confirming colonoscopic intubation of the cecum can be a laborious, time-consuming, and often frustrating endeavor. Anatomic landmarks may offer visual clues of cecal intubation, but the predictability of this evidence is unclear. The presence of three cecal landmarks, alone and in combination, were evaluated to precisely define their reliability.

Between February and October of 1991, 601 of 708 (85%) consecutive colonoscopic examinations were able to be completed to the cecum as confirmed by fluoroscopy. All three cecal landmarks studied were present in 64% (386/601), two cecal landmarks in 32% (189/601), and one cecal landmark in 4% (26/601) of the patients. Therefore, at least two cecal landmarks were identified in 96% (575/601) of the patients.

The ileocecal sphincter was identified in 98% (591/601) of patients overall, in 98% (185/189) of patients with 2 cecal landmarks, and in 77% (20/26) of patients with 1 cecal landmark. The appendiceal orifice was seen in 87% (524/601) of patients overall and in 72% (137/189) of patients with 2 cecal landmarks. Transillumination through the abdominal wall was possible in 74% (447/601) of patients overall and in 30% (56/189) of patients with 2 cecal landmarks.

In summary, the ileocecal sphincter is the most reliable cecal landmark and is invariably visualized, even when all other landmarks are obscure. While other cecal landmarks, such as the appendiceal orifice and transillumination, are consistently identified, they are most valuable when found in association with the ileocecal sphincter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrams JS (1977) A hard look at colonoscopy. Am J Surg 133: 111–115

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1991) Documenting the use of fluoroscopy during colonoscopic examination: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 5: 200–203

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coller JA, Corman ML, Veidenheimer MC (1976) Colonic polypoid disease: need for total colonoscopy. Am J Surg 131: 490–494

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cotton PB, Williams CB (1990) Colonoscopy. In: Cotton PB, Williams CB (eds) Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy, 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 160–223

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dean ACB, Shearman DJC (1970) Clinical evaluation of a new fiberoptic colonoscope. Lancet 1: 550–552

    Google Scholar 

  6. Didio LJA, Anderson MC (1968) Jejunum and ileum. In: Didio LJA, Anderson MC (eds) The “sphincters” of the digestive system. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 152–196

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gaisford WD (1972) Gastrointestinal fiberendoscopy. Am J Surg 124: 744–749

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gaisford WD (1973) Gastrointestinal polypectomy via the fiberendoscope. Arch Surg 106: 458–462

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gaisford WD (1974) Fiberendoscopy of the cecum and terminal ileum. Gastrointest Endosc 21: 13–18

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hunt RH (1981) Colonoscopy intubation techniques with fluoroscopy. In: Hunt RH, Waye JD (eds) Colonoscopy: techniques, clinical practice, and colour atlas. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 109–146

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lehman GA, Maveety PR, O'Connor KW (1985) Mucosal clipping — utility and safety testing in the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 31: 273–276

    Google Scholar 

  12. Leicester RJ, Williams CB (1981) Use of a metal detector for localisation during fibresigmoidoscopy or limited colonoscopy. Lancet II: 232–233

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nagasako K, Takemoto T (1973) Endoscopy of the ileocecal area. Gastroenterology 65: 403–411

    Google Scholar 

  14. Overholt BF (1971) Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy. Technique and preliminary results. Cancer 28: 123–126

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rauh SM, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ Jr (1989) Fluoroscopy in colonoscopy: who is using it and why? Am Surg 55: 669–674

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sakai Y (1972) The technic of colonofiberoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 15: 403–412

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shinya H, Wolff WI (1976) Colonoscopy. In: Nyhus LM (ed) Surgery annual. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 257–295

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sugawa C, Schuman BM (1981) Colonoscopy. In: Sugawa C, Schuman BM (eds) Primer of gastrointestinal fiberoptic endoscopy. Little, Brown & Co, Boston, pp 99–131

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tabibian N, Michaletz PA, Schwartz JT, Heiser MC, Dixon WB, Smith JL, Graham DY (1988) Use of an endoscopically placed clip can avoid diagnostic errors in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 34: 262–264

    Google Scholar 

  20. Waye JD (1981) Colonoscopy intubation techniques without fluoroscopy. In: Hunt RH, Waye JD (eds) Colonoscopy: techniques, clinical practice, and colour atlas. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 147–178

    Google Scholar 

  21. Waye JD, Atchison MAE, Talbott MC, Lewis BS (1988) Transillumination of light in the right lower quadrant during total colonoscopy (Letter to the editor). Gstrointest Endosc 34: 69

    Google Scholar 

  22. Webb WA (1991) Colonoscoping the “difficult” colon. Am Surgeon 57: 178–182

    Google Scholar 

  23. Williams C, Muto T (1972) Examination of the whole colon with the fibreoptic colonoscope. BMJ 3: 278–281

    Google Scholar 

  24. Williams CB (1989) Endoscopic instrumentation. In: Cotton PB, Tytgat GNJ, Williams CB (eds) Annual of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Current Science, London, pp 138–148

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wolff WI, Shinya H (1971) Colonofiberoscopy. JAMA 217: 1509–1512

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wolff WI, Shinya H, Geffen A, Ozaktay S (1972) Colonofiberoscopy: a new and valuable diagnostic modality. Am J Surg 123: 180–184

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 40, 11203, Brooklyn, NY

    William C. Cirocco

  2. Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Saint Vincent Health Center and Hamot Medical Center, 201 State Street, 16508, Erie, PA

    Lawrence C. Rusin

Authors
  1. William C. Cirocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lawrence C. Rusin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cirocco, W.C., Rusin, L.C. The reliability of cecal landmarks during colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 7, 33–36 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00591234

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00591234

Key words

Search

Navigation