Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 10 (4), 569-73

Effect of Functional Status on the Quality of Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy


Effect of Functional Status on the Quality of Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Akash Kumar et al. Gut Liver.


Background/aims: Optimal bowel preparation is essential for successful screening or for surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Inadequate bowel preparation is associated with older age, the male gender, and the presence of certain comorbidities. However, the association between patients' functional status and bowel preparation quality has not been studied. We prospectively examined the relationship between functional status, namely, the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) and ambulate, and the quality of bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing SC.

Methods: Before undergoing SC, 88 elderly patients were surveyed regarding their functional status, specifically regarding their ability to perform ADLs and ambulate a quarter of a mile. Gastroenterologists then determined the quality of the bowel preparation, which was classified as either adequate or inadequate. Then, the frequency of inadequate bowel preparation in patients who did or did not experience difficulty performing ADLs and ambulating was calculated.

Results: Difficulty ambulating (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.83; p<0.001), difficulty performing ADLs (OR, 2.93; p=0.001), and history of diabetes (OR, 2.88; p=0.007) were significant univariate predictors of inadequate bowel preparation. After adjusting for the above variables, only difficulty ambulating (adjusted OR, 5.78; p=0.004) was an independent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation.

Conclusions: Difficulty with ambulation is a strong predictor of inadequate bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing SC.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Geriatric; Practice improvement.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 PubMed Central articles


    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:10–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.20138. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2013 [Internet] Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013. [cited 2014 Aug 14]. Available from:
    1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy: the National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1696–1700. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05827.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Senore C, Ederle A, Fantin A, et al. Acceptability and side-effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J Med Screen. 2011;18:128–134. doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.010135. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types