Flexible Sigmoidoscopy: Optimal bowel preparation with enema versus polyethylene glycol
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v7i2.21586Keywords:
Adequecy, Flexible Sigmoidoscopy, Preparation, Screening, ToleranceAbstract
Background: Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy requires adequate bowel preparation. However there is no unanimous recommendation on choice of agent of bowel preparation for the purpose of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Objective: To compare the quality of bowel preparation and patient’s tolerance between Enema (Solution of Glycerin 15% w/v and Sodium Chloride 15% w/v)and Polyethylene glycol for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Methodology: All consecutive patients undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy were included in the study. We prospectively divided the patients into two groups. Group A received per rectal enema and group B received oral bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol. Adequacy of bowel preparation and patient’s tolerance between two groups was graded. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2010.
Results: Results were comparable regarding quality of bowel preparation between two groups (A and B), excellent in 20% and 33.33% and good in 60% and 50% respectively. Almost all patients could tolerate the preparation agent in Group A (n=28). In-group B, eight patients (26.66%) considered the oral preparation agent difficult to tolerate and two patients (6%) were unable to complete the preparation.
Conclusion: Enema (Solution of Glycerin 15% w/v and Sodium Chloride 15% w/v) and Polyethylene glycol have similar quality of bowel preparation and for screening sigmoidos copy. Enema is adequate and much easily tolerable compared to polyethylene glycol.
Journal of Kathmandu Medical College,
Vol. 7, No. 2, Issue 24, Apr.-Jun., 2018, page: 50-54
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © Journal of Kathmandu Medical College
The ideas and opinions expressed by authors or articles summarized, quoted, or published in full text in this journal represent only the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Journal of Kathmandu Medical College or the institute with which the author(s) is/are affiliated, unless so specified.
Authors convey all copyright ownership, including any and all rights incidental thereto, exclusively to JKMC, in the event that such work is published by JKMC. JKMC shall own the work, including 1) copyright; 2) the right to grant permission to republish the article in whole or in part, with or without fee; 3) the right to produce preprints or reprints and translate into languages other than English for sale or free distribution; and 4) the right to republish the work in a collection of articles in any other mechanical or electronic format.
