Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective randomized single blind trial of Fleet phosphate enema versus glycerin suppositories as preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

This study compared the efficacy and patient acceptability of two methods of bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Methods

Patients attending for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy were prospectively randomized to receive one Fleet ready-to-use enema or 2 × 4 g glycerin suppositories, 2 h preprocedure. Patient and endoscopist questionnaires were used to compare the outcomes.

Results

From November 2000 to August 2001, 203 (male = 95; female = 108) patients were randomized. Patient data available for 163 patients (enema = 93; suppository = 70) revealed: ease of use (enema = 52; suppository = 25; P < 0.02, Fisher’s exact); assistance required (enema = 19; suppository = 3; P < 0.005, Fisher’s exact); grade of effectiveness (enema = 83; suppository = 44; P < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact), and whether patients wished to try another preparation in future (enema = 16; suppository = 24; P = 0.016, Fisher’s exact). Endoscopist data available for 151 patients (enema = 76; suppository = 75) revealed: average depth of insertion (enema = 53.6 ± 11.6 cm; suppository 46.3 ± 13.7 cm; P < 0.001, Student’s t test); acceptable (excellent + good) quality of preparation [enema = 60 (78.9%); suppository = 34 (45.3%); P < 0.0001, Fisher’s exact].

Conclusion

Bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy using a single Fleet enema is acceptable to patients and more effective than glycerin suppositories.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Papagrigoriadis S, Arunkumar I, Koreli A et al (2004) Evaluation of flexible sigmoidoscopy as an investigation for “left sided” colorectal symptoms. Postgrad Med J 80:104–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashley OS, Nadel M, Ransohoff DF (2001) Achieving quality in flexible sigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Am J Med 111:643–653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fincher RK, Oscar EM, Jackson JL et al (1999) A comparison of bowel preparations for flexible sigmoidoscopy: oral magnesium citrate combined with oral Bisacodyl, one hypertonic phosphate enema or two hypertonic phosphate enemas. Am J of Gastroenterol 94:2122–2127

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bini EJ, Unger JS, Reiber JM et al (2000) Prospective, randomized, single blind comparison of two preparations for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 52:218–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Preston KL, Peluso FE, Goldner F (1994) Optimal bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy: are two enemas better than one. Gastrointest Endosc 40:474–476

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Drew PJ, Hughes M, Hodson R et al (1997) The optimum bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eur J Surg Oncol 23:315–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiss BD, Watkins S (1985) Bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy. J Fam Pract 21:285–287

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Manoucheri M, Nakamura DY, Lukman RL (1999) Bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy; which method yields the best results? J Fam Pract 48:272–274

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown AR, DiPalma JA (2004) Bowel preparation for gastrointestinal procedures. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 6:395–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Atkin WS, Hart A, Edwards R (2000) Single blind randomized trial of efficacy and acceptability of oral Picolax versus self administered phosphate enema in bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. BMJ 320:1504–1509

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bulmer M, Hartley J, Lee PW et al (2000) Improving the view in the rectal clinic: a randomized control trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:210–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Faigel DO, Eisen GM, Baron TH et al (2003) For the standards of practice committee, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: preparation of patients for GI endoscopy. Gastrointes Endosc 57:446–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Osgard E, Jeffrey L, Jackson et al (1998) A Randomized trial comparing three methods of bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 93:1126–1130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lund JN, Buckley D, Bernnett D et al (1998) A randomized trial of hospital versus home administered enemas for flexible sigmoidoscopy. BMJ 317:1201

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Forster JA, Thomas WM (2003) Patient preferences and side effects experienced with oral bowel preparations versus self-administered phosphate enema. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:185–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Glenshane Road, Londonderry, BT47 6SB, Northern Ireland, UK

    D. Underwood, R. R. Makar, A. L. Gidwani, S. M. Najfi, P. Neilly & R. Gilliland

Authors
  1. D. Underwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. R. Makar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. L. Gidwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. M. Najfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Neilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Gilliland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. L. Gidwani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Underwood, D., Makar, R.R., Gidwani, A.L. et al. A prospective randomized single blind trial of Fleet phosphate enema versus glycerin suppositories as preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Ir J Med Sci 179, 113–118 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-009-0403-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-009-0403-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation