Abdominal pain is a common but benign symptom after colonoscopy. We report a case of acute pancreatitis that occurred just after an elective screening colonoscopy; this is a rare event with very few reported cases. A healthy, asymptomatic male underwent screening colonoscopy at our center and developed abdominal pain and emesis after the procedure. An abdominal X-ray ruled out perforation but laboratory tests revealed elevated levels of amylase and lipase. The patient had no etiological risk factors for pancreatitis. The presumed mechanism of pancreatitis in this case is mechanical and pressure trauma from excessive insufflation, external abdominal pressure, and repeated withdrawal of the colonoscope due to tight angulation of the splenic flexure, a structure that is in close proximity to the pancreatic tail. Acute pancreatitis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients who present with abdominal pain after colonoscopy once more common etiologies have been excluded.

Background/Aims: Patients of ulcerative colitis (UC) on follow-up are routinely evaluated by sigmoidoscopy. There is no prospective literature to support this practice. We assessed agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy prospectively in patients with disease extent beyond the sigmoid colon. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study at a tertiary care institute for agreement between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We assessed endoscopic activity using the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and histological activity using the Nancy Index (NI), Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI), and Simplified Geboes Score (SGS). Results: Sigmoidoscopy showed a strong agreement with colonoscopy for MES and UCEIS with a kappa (κ) of 0.96 and 0.94 respectively. The misclassification rate for MES and UCEIS was 3% and 5% respectively. Sigmoidoscopy showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.00) with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity in the colon using MES ≥ 1 as activity criteria and strong agreement (κ = 0.93) using MES > 1 as activity criteria. Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for assessment of the presence of endoscopic activity using UCEIS (κ = 0.92). Strong agreement was observed between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy using NI (κ = 0.86), RHI (κ = 1.00), and SGS (κ = 0.92) for the detection of histological activity. The misclassification rate for the detection of histological activity was 2%, 0%, and 1% for NI, RHI, and SGS respectively. Conclusions Sigmoidoscopy showed strong agreement with colonoscopy for endoscopic and histologic disease activity. Sigmoidoscopy is adequate for assessment of disease activity in patients with UC during follow-up evaluation.