Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 80, No. 4, 2009
Issue release date: December 2009
Digestion 2009;80:267–270

The Completion Rate of Colonoscopy in Normal Daily Practice: Factors Associated with Failure

Loffeld R.J.L.F. · van der Putten A.B.M.M.
Department of Internal Medicine, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, The Netherlands

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background: Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic procedure for screening as well as for patients presenting with complaints. The completion of a colonoscopy is defined as cecal intubation. A large single center study was done in order to evaluate the completion rate of colonoscopy and identify reasons for failure. Patients and Methods: We reviewed all consecutive endoscopies of the lower digestive tract done over a period of 15 years by 2 endoscopists. The main outcome measure was a successful cecal intubation. Results: 14,139 consecutive colonoscopies were done. Overall cecal intubation was successful in 11,787 procedures (83.3%). Three hundred and sixty-one of the nonsuccessful procedures were due to insufficient colon cleansing, and no significant abnormalities were seen in 362 procedures. In the remaining 1,629 endoscopies, significant diagnoses were made. The presence of colorectal cancer, diverticula and inflammatory bowel disease were significant findings in nonsuccessful procedures. Conclusion: In normal daily practice, colonoscopy is completed in 83.3% of the procedures. Reasons for failure are obstructing tumors, diverticula and insufficient colon cleansing.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Cooper S: Colonoscopy: a tarnished gold standard? Gastroenterology 2007;132:2588–2604.
  2. Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Burt R, Kikendall JW, Lance P, Shike M, Lanza E, Schatskin A: Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:385–391.
  3. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garawal H, Chejfec G: Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. New Engl J Med 2000;343:162–168.
  4. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF: Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. New Engl J Med 2000;343:169–174.
  5. Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Pachlewski J, Orlowska J, Nowacki MP, Butruk E: Colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. New Engl J Med 2006;355:1863–1872.
  6. Gorard DA, McIntyre AS: Completion rate to caecum as a quality measure of colonoscopy in a district general hospital. Colorectal Dis 2004;6:243–249.
  7. Mitchell RM, McCallion K, Gardiner KR, Watson RG, Collins JS: Successful colonoscopy: completion rates and reasons for incompletion. Ulster Med J 2002;71:34–37.
  8. Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Ramaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O: A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal screening tomorrow? Gut 2004;53:277–283.
  9. Grassinie M, Verna C, Niola P, Navino M, Battaglia E, Bassotti G: Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:1816–1819.

    External Resources

  10. Shah SG, Saunders BP: Aids to insertion: magnetic imaging, variable stiffness and overtubes. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2005;15:673–686.
  11. Eickhoff A, Pickhardt PJ, Hartmann D, Riemann JF: Colon anatomy based on CT colonography and fluoroscopy: impact on looping, straightening and ancillary manoeuvres in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2009; E-pub ahead of print.
  12. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Stukel TA, Rabeneck L: Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2007;132:2297–2303.
  13. Khashab MA, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Rex DK: Colorectal anatomy in adults at computed tomography colonography: normal distribution and the effect of age, sex, and body mass index. Endoscopy 2009;8:674–678.

    External Resources

  14. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP: Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European Multicenter Study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:378–384.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 33.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 23.00