Colorectal anatomy in adults at computed tomography colonography: normal distribution and the effect of age, sex, and body mass index

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is an accurate tool for assessing the large intestinal anatomy. Our aims were to determine the normal distribution of in vivo colorectal anatomy and to investigate the effect of age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) on colorectal length.

Patients and methods: Asymptomatic adults who underwent primary CTC examination at a single institution over an 8-month period were evaluated. The interactive three-dimensional map was used to determine total and segmental lengths and number of acute-angle flexures. The two-dimensional multiplanar display was used to measure luminal diameters. The effects of age, sex, and BMI on colorectal lengths were examined.

Results: The study cohort consisted of 505 consecutive adults (266 women, mean age 56.6 years). Mean total colorectal length was 189.5 ± 26.3 cm and mean number of acute-angle flexures was 10.9 ± 2.4. Total length for older adults (> 60 years) did not significantly differ from those who were younger than 60 years (P = 0.22), although the transverse colon was significantly longer in older adults (P = 0.04). Women had significantly longer colons than men (193.3 cm vs. 185.4 cm, P = 0.002), whereas overweight adults (BMI > 25) had significantly shorter colons compared with those with BMI ≤ 25 (187.2 cm vs. 194.5 cm, P = 0.005). Differences in total length were predominately due to differences in the transverse colon.

Conclusions: Our results define the normal distribution of colorectal anatomy in an asymptomatic adult cohort, and may help to facilitate both colonoscopy training efforts and design of novel endoscopic devices. The transverse colon was the major determinant in length differences according to age, sex, and BMI, and was significantly longer in older adults, women, and thinner adults, respectively.

References

• 1 Saunders B P, Fukumoto M, Halligan S. et al . Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 124-126
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Saunders B P, Phillips R K, Williams C B. Intraoperative measurement of colonic anatomy and attachments with relevance to colonoscopy.  Br J Surg. 1995;  82 1491-1493
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Hounnou G, Destrieux C, Desme J. et al . Anatomical study of the length of the human intestine.  Surg Radiol Anat. 2002;  24 290-294
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Saunders B P, Halligan S, Jobling C. et al . Can barium enema indicate when colonoscopy will be difficult?.  Clin Radiol. 1995;  50 318-321
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Walter L C, de Garmo P, Covinsky K E. Association of older age and female sex with inadequate reach of screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.  Am J Med. 2004;  116 174-178
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hanson M E, Pickhardt P J, Kim D H. et al . Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at CT colonography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;  189 774-779
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Madiba T E, Haffajee M R, Sikhosana M H. Radiological anatomy of the sigmoid colon.  Surg Radiol Anat. 2008;  30 409-415
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Bhatnagar B N, Sharma C L, Gupta S N. et al . Study on the anatomical dimensions of the human sigmoid colon.  Clin Anat. 2004;  17 236-243
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Sadahiro S, Ohmura T, Yamada Y. et al . Analysis of length and surface area of each segment of the large intestine according to age, sex and physique.  Surg Radiol Anat. 1992;  14 251-257
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kim D H, Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J. et al . CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia.  N Engl J Med. 2007;  357 1403-1412
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Shinners T J, Pickhardt P J, Taylor A J. et al . Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;  186 1491-1496
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Pfeffer J, Grinshpon R, Rex D. et al . The Aer-O-Scope: proof of the concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope in a pig model.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 144-148
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Vucelic B, Rex D, Pulanic R. et al . The Aer-O-Scope: proof of concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope.  Gastroenterology. 2006;  130 672-677
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Arber N, Grinshpon R, Pfeffer J. et al . Proof-of-concept study of the Aer-O-Scope omnidirectional colonoscopic viewing system in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 412-417
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Seeff L C, Manninen D L, Dong F B. et al . Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 1661-1669
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Anderson J C, Gonzalez J D, Messina C R. et al . Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 2784-2787
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

D. K. RexMD 

Department of Medicine
Division of Gastroenterology
Indiana University School of Medicine

550 N. University Boulevard UH 4100
Indianapolis
IN 46202
USA

Fax: +1-317-274-5449

Email: drex@iupui.edu