CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2018; 09(01): 010-013
DOI: 10.4103/jde.JDE_24_17
Original Article
Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India

How Frequent does Bow and Arrow Sign Locate Ileocecal Valve during Colonoscopy?

Adegboyega Akere
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
,
Tejan Ahmad Edries
1   Department of Medicine, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 September 2019 (online)

Abstract

Aim: Two major ways to locate the ileocecal valve (ICV) are to look for a thickening or bulge on the ileocecal fold, and the other is the “bow and arrow” method or the “appendix trick”. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of “bow and arrow” method to locate the ICV during colonoscopy. Patients and Methods: Colonoscopy was performed with the patients in the left lateral position. After cecal intubation had been confirmed, the appendiceal opening was identified, with the curve serving as the bow, an imaginary arrow was placed across the curve toward the appendix lumen. The tip of the imaginary arrow was then followed to confirm if it correlated to the location of the ICV. Results: The “bow and arrow” accurately located the ICV in 105 (76.6%) patients, but failed in 32 (23.4%) patients. The mean age (56.2 ± 13.1 years) of the patients in whom the “bow and arrow” located the ICV was lower than that (62.7 ± 0.9 years) of the patients in whom it failed to locate the ICV. Males, 58 (71.6%) had positive “bow and arrow”, while this was observed in 47 (83.9%) females. It correctly located the ICV in 73 (53.3%) of those with thin‑lip ICV, 20 (14.6%) of those with volcanic type, and 12 (8.8%) of those with double bulge ICV. Conclusion: The bow and arrow sign could not locate the ICV in all cases in our practice and so where it failed, alternative method should be employed to locate the ICV.

 
  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Cotton PB, Williams CB. Practical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. London: Blackwell Publishers; 1996: p. 116-60
  • 2 Williams CB. Insertion technique. In: Waye JD, Rex KD, Williams CB. editors. Colonoscopy: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009: p. 537-60
  • 3 Banerjee A, Kumar IA, Tapadar A, Pranay M. Morphological variations in the anatomy of caecum and appendix - A cadaveric study. Natl J Clin Anat 2012; 1: 30-5
  • 4 Delić J, Savković A, Isaković E. Variations in the position and point of origin of the vermiform appendix. Med Arh 2002; 56: 5-8
  • 5 Paul UK, Naushaba H, Alam MJ, Begum T, Rahman A, Akhter J. Length of vermiform appendix: A post-mortem study. Bangladesh J Anat 2011; 9: 10-2
  • 6 Ahmed I, Asgeirsson KS, Beckingham IJ, Lobo DN. The position of the vermiform appendix at laparoscopy. Surg Radiol Anat 2007; 29: 165-8
  • 7 Ahangar S, Zaz M, Shah M, Wani SN. Perforated subhepatic appendix presenting as gas under diaphragm. Indian J Surg 2010; 72: 273-4
  • 8 Pittman-Waller VA, Myers JG, Stewart RM, Dent DL, Page CP, Gray GA. et al. Appendicitis: Why so complicated? Analysis of 5755 consecutive appendectomies. Am Surg 2000; 66: 548-54
  • 9 Nayak SB, George BM, Mishra S, Surendran S, Shetty P, Shetty SD. et al. Sessile ileum, subhepatic cecum, and uncinate appendix that might lead to a diagnostic dilemma. Anat Cell Biol 2013; 46: 296-8