Skip to main content
Log in

Correlation Between Preoperative Endoscopic and Intraoperative Findings in Localizing Colorectal Lesions

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Colonoscopy findings compared with findings at time of surgery have a discrepancy rate of 3–21%. The objective of our study was to investigate this discrepancy and provide potential resolutions.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we identified 400 patients who underwent colonoscopy followed by colon resection at our community hospitals in 1999–2006. Discrepancies between colonoscopy and intraoperative findings were noted. Each discrepancy was classified as major if the surgical procedure had to be altered, the lesion was missed, an unnecessary segment was removed, or the incision was extended. A discrepancy was classified as minor if there was no alteration in planned surgery.

Results

Of the 400 cases, 160 (40%) were located in the right colon, 13 (3%) were in the transverse colon, 185 (46%) were in the left colon, and 42 (11%) were in the rectum. A total of 48 (12%) discrepancies between colonoscopy and intraoperative findings were identified: 26 (54%) were major and 22 (46%) were minor. Thirteen (27%) were in the proximal colon (3 major and 10 minor discrepancies), 3 (6.3%) were in the transverse colon (all major), 22 (46%) were in the distal colon (17 major and 5 minor), and 10 (21%) were in the rectum (3 major, 7 minor). Major discrepancies were significantly higher in the left colon (17 of the 185 left-sided lesions; 9.1%) than in the right colon (3/160; 1.9%; P = 0.045).

Conclusions

In our study, colonoscopy has an error rate of 12% when used to localize tumors; more than half of these patients require significant unanticipated changes in their surgery. The discrepancies are significantly higher in left side of colon.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Piscatelli N, Hyman N, Osler T (2005) Localizing colorectal cancer by colonoscopy. Arch Surg 140:932–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A et al (2003) Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta AK, Melton LJ 3rd, Petersen GM et al (2005) Changing trends in the incidence, stage, survival, and screen-detection of colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:150–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkin W (2003) Options for screening for colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol 237(Suppl):13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Santoro GA, D’Elia A, Battistella G et al (2007) The use of a dedicated rectosigmoidoscope for ultrasound staging of tumours of the upper and middle third of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 9:61–66

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathew J, Shankar P, Aldean IM (2004) Audit on flexible sigmoidoscopy for rectal bleeding in a district general hospital: are we over-loading the resources? Postgrad Med J 80:38–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365:305–311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A et al (1995) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery—are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum 38:723–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hancock JH, Talbot RW (1995) Accuracy of colonoscopy in localisation of colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 10:140–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenberg JM (2000) The best offense is a good defense against medical errors: putting the full-court press on medical errors. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville. January 20, 2000. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/spch012000.htm. Accessed 1 June 2007

  11. Leaper M, Johnston MJ, Barclay M et al (2004) Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy 36:499–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rex DK (2006) Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2866–2877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Karl RC (2007) Staying safe: simple tools for safe surgery. Bull Am Coll Surg 92:16–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feingold DL, Addona T, Forde KA et al (2004) Safety and reliability of tattooing colorectal neoplasms prior to laparoscopic resection. J Gastrointest Surg 8:543–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Askin MP, Waye JD, Fiedler L et al (2002) Tattoo of colonic neoplasms in 113 patients with a new sterile carbon compound. Gastrointest Endosc 56:339–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds) (2000) To err is human: building a safer health care system [monograph on the Internet]. National Academies Press, Washington. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9728.html. Accessed 2007 June 1 2007

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rosanne Russo for Tumor registry and Rita Raio for written project coordination.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Mandava.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Louis, M.A., Nandipati, K., Astorga, R. et al. Correlation Between Preoperative Endoscopic and Intraoperative Findings in Localizing Colorectal Lesions. World J Surg 34, 1587–1591 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0358-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0358-y

Keywords

Navigation