Accessing proximal aspects of folds and flexures during colonoscopy: impact of a pediatric colonoscope with a short bending section

OBJECTIVE: Accessing the proximal sides of colorectal folds, flexures, and valves can be difficult endoscopically and can contribute to missed lesions and failed therapeutic procedures. The aim of this study was to determine whether a prototype colonoscope with a short bending section could facilitate accessing difficult to reach areas proximal to folds, flexures, and valves. METHODS: In a nonrandomized study, the prototype colonoscope, a standard pediatric colonoscope, and a standard adult colonoscope were used to attempt retroflexion in the cecum and, if unsuccessful, in the right colon. RESULTS: The prototype colonoscope allowed cecal retroflexion, including clear visualization of the ileocecal valve and the cecal mucosa medial to the valve, in 95% of attempts. A standard pediatric colonoscope was successful in 50% and a standard adult colonoscope in 24.5%. The prototype was more successful than both the standard pediatric (p < 0.001) and the standard adult instrument (p < 0.001). The standard pediatric colonoscope was successful more often than the standard adult colonoscope (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using the ability to retroflex in the cecum as a surrogate marker, a prototype pediatric colonoscope with a short bending section seems to facilitate retroflexion and visualization of the proximal aspects of difficult to see regions in the proximal colon.     

Colonoscopy: go small for success?

Colonoscopy using standard adult colonoscopes can be difficult in patients with fixed, angulated sigmoid colons. An earlier study from the same center suggested that in women who have had hysterectomy, successful colonoscopy occurred with greater frequency when initiated with a pediatric colonoscope versus an adult colonoscope. This follow-up study was a nonblinded clinical trial comparing the use of a pediatric colonoscope with an adult colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women with previous hysterectomy. A total of 100 female patients presenting for an outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to use the pediatric (Olympus PCF-100) or adult (Olympus CF-100L or CF-Q140L) colonoscope.
The primary outcome was the comparative rate of cecal intubation. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time, cecal insertion time, sedative administration, procedural difficulty, and patients' experience. Endoscopists encountering difficult insertion had the opportunity to use the alternate scope. The cecum was reached in 49 of 51 (96.1%) women when using the pediatric colonoscope versus 35 of 49 (71.4%) women when using the adult colonoscope. Of the 14 incomplete examinations initiated with an adult colonoscope, the pediatric colonoscope was used 12 times, and the cecum was reached in nine, adjusting the rate of successful colonoscopy to 44 of 49 (89.8%). There was no statistical difference in total procedure time, cecal insertion time, sedative drug dosages, procedural difficulty, or patient comfort using either scope.
When performing routine colonoscopy in women with previous hysterectomy, the authors recommend either starting with a pediatric colonoscope or having one available in the advent of a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon.     

A randomized controlled trial in a training institution comparing a pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope, a pediatric colonoscope, and an adult colonoscope

BACKGROUND: There are few comparative data on the efficacy of different colonoscopes. This study compared the efficacy of a new pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope with that of standard pediatric and adult colonoscopes in the performance of routine colonoscopy. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-three consecutive patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy with a pediatric variable stiffness (n = 122), pediatric (n = 114), or adult colonoscope (n = 127). Primary outcomes recorded were minutes to the cecum and completeness of the examination. Secondary outcomes included patient tolerance, use of abdominal compression, and endoscopists' assessment of the difficulty of the procedure. RESULTS: Cecal intubation rates were not statistically different between the groups: variable stiffness (94.3%), pediatric (96.5%), and adult (89.8%) (p = 0.099). There was no significant difference in mean insertion time, patient tolerance, use of abdominal compression, or endoscopists' global assessment or examination difficulty between groups. Overall, the initial completion rate of 93% increased to 97% on switching to a different colonoscope. Colonoscopy was unsuccessful more often and was more time consuming in women who had undergone hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: The variable stiffness colonoscope performs well, but does not appear to offer any distinct advantage over standard pediatric or adult colonoscopes for routine colonoscopy. Further study may identify subgroups of patients that benefit from this new technology.     

Tapered colonoscope performs better than the pediatric colonoscope in female patients: a direct comparison through tandem colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The pediatric variable-stiffness colonoscope (PVSC) is used by many endoscopists to negotiate the colon that requires a flexible colonoscope; it has a smaller diameter, but may lead to excessive looping. A prototype colonoscope tapers from an adult width to a pediatric diameter at approximately 25 cm. The tapered colonoscope (TC), while retaining the flexibility of the PVSC, has the column strength of the adult colonoscope to help negotiate the proximal colon. OBJECTIVE: Our hypothesis is that use of the TC in female patients would be associated with less looping than the PVSC during the procedure, fewer required maneuvers, and thus a quicker examination. DESIGN: Direct comparison through tandem colonoscopies. SETTING: University endoscopy suite. PATIENTS: Forty unselected female patients. INTERVENTIONS: Tandem colonoscopies with PVSC and TC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Time to the cecum and the ability to retroflex in the cecum. RESULTS: Compared with the PVSC, the TC had faster times to achieve cecal intubation (mean [standard deviation], 8.83+/-4.68 minutes versus 6.88+/-4.08 minutes; P=.013) and a higher rate of retroflexion in the cecum (31/40 patients vs 39/40 patients; P<.01). Use of the TC was associated with a decreased need for abdominal pressure (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The TC achieved faster cecal intubation rates and had a higher success of cecal retroflexion than a PVSC. This performance likely was because of diminished looping and thus a decreased need for maneuvers. The TC may be preferable to the PVSC for female patients.     

Colonoscopic performance in a sedated health screening population: influence of colonoscope type

Background/Aims: Difficult or incomplete colonoscopes occasionally occur due to variable colonic anatomy and fixation. The aim of this study was to determine whether different types of colonoscopes used would affect the colonoscopic performance and sedation practice. Methodology: Consecutive patients attending for health examination were randomized to examination with either the Olympus GIF-Q260 (OS) or Fujinon EC-450 (FS). The cecal intubation rate and time were evaluated. The dose for sedation was also compared. Results: Among 86 subjects, 44 were performed with the OS scope and 42 with the FS. Intubation time was quicker with the FS than OS (3.6±0.3 vs. 4.7±0.4min, p=0.024). The intubation rate was not statistically different between the OS and FS groups (p=ns). The total dose of sedation used was similar between OS and FS groups (p=ns). The intubation time correlated negatively with body weight (r=-0.28, p=0.01). Conclusions: The FS colonoscope appears to provide additional advantage by improving the speed of cecal intubation without compromising the intubation rate or increasing sedation dose, although the two types of colonoscopes are equally efficient in colonoscopic performance.     

Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults

BACKGROUND: There are few published data on how different types of colonoscopes affect success in reaching the cecum and patient comfort. We examined the feasibility of using a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in adults and investigated whether there were subgroups of patients in whom use of this instrument was preferable. METHODS: One-hundred fifty adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (Olympus CF-100L) or with a pediatric colonoscope (Olympus PCF-100). All procedures were performed by a faculty endoscopist and timed by an independent observer. After examinations, the endoscopist graded procedure difficulty and patients were given a questionnaire that assessed their experience. RESULTS: The adult (n = 77) and pediatric (n = 73) colonoscope groups were comparable in all outcomes measured, including success in reaching the cecum (91% vs. 93%, p = 0.61), mean time to reach the cecum (11.4 vs. 9.7 min, p = 0.07), mean total procedure time (21.8 vs. 21.9 min, p = 0.95), mean meperidine dose (55 vs. 52 mg, p = 0.17); median midazolam dose (2.0 mg in both groups, p = 0.10), the endoscopists' perception of procedure difficulty, and patient comfort scales. Of the 7 patients in whom colonoscopy with the adult colonoscope was unsuccessful, the cecum was reached in 4 by switching to a pediatric colonoscope (all women, 3 of whom had prior hysterectomy). In the 5 patients in whom colonoscopy with the pediatric colonoscope was unsuccessful, the cecum was reached in 1 by switching to an adult colonoscope. Including the cases in which the cecum was reached by switching to the alternative colonoscope, the overall frequency of cecal intubation was 143 of 150 (95%). Subgroup analysis disclosed no difference between the 2 groups in outcomes when gender, presence of diverticulosis, and patient size were considered. Colonoscopy with the pediatric colonoscope was more successful than with the adult instrument in reaching the cecum in women with prior hysterectomy (11 of 12 [92%] vs. 15 of 21 [71%]); however, the numbers in each group were relatively small and the difference was not significant (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric colonoscope is suitable for routine colonoscopy in adults. It is also useful in patients in whom colonoscopy with the adult colonoscope is unsuccessful in reaching the cecum (particularly in women). Additional study is needed to see if the pediatric colonoscope is actually superior to the adult colonoscopy for routine colonoscopy in women with prior hysterectomy.     

A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope is believed to have theoretical advantages over the standard colonoscope, however a systematic evaluation of this instrument in routine clinical practice involving adult patients is lacking. METHODS: Consecutive patients (blinded) undergoing colonoscopy in an outpatient endoscopy center by one of 4 experienced colonoscopists had the procedure performed with a standard colonoscope (n=384) or pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope (n=413). Failure to negotiate the sigmoid colon within 10 minutes was regarded as a failure and, if suitable, the patient was crossed over to colonoscopy with the alternative instrument. RESULTS: Median (95% CI) time to the cecum was significantly faster in the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope group (odds ratio 5.0: 95% CI[4.7,5.3] minutes) compared with the standard colonoscope group (odds ratio 5.5: 95% CI[5.2,5.8] minutes, p=0.01). There were 22 failures overall (2.8%), 14 in the standard colonoscope group (3.6%) and 8 in the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope group (1.9%; p=0.1). With regard to the 14 failures in the standard colonoscope group, colonoscopy was attempted with the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope in 13 and completed successfully in 12 (92%). The pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope was superior in cases of severe stenosing diverticular disease; two of 27 examinations with the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope were rated as failed vs. 12 of 18 with the standard colonoscope (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intubation time was faster with the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope, but use of this instrument was not associated with a superior cecal intubation rate compared with the standard colonoscope. However, in patients with severe stenosing diverticular disease, the intubation rate with the pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope was superior.     

A retrospective analysis of cecal barotrauma caused by colonoscope air flow and pressure

BACKGROUND: This study addressed the question of whether barotrauma during colonoscopy is sufficient to rupture the colon. METHODS: A total of 3000 colonoscopies were retrospectively analyzed, and the colonoscopes used for these procedures were evaluated in an in vitro analysis. Air pressure at the tip of the colonoscopes and air flow through the instruments were measured. The equation F=F MAX-P TIP/R was used to graph flow values (F) from the maximum measured flow (F MAX), the calculated resistance to air flow offered by the colonoscope (R), and the air pressure observed at the colonoscope tip (P TIP ). RESULTS: Four perforations occurred during 1500 consecutive colonoscopies performed with equipment from one manufacturer (Pentax Precision Instrument Corp., Orangeburg, NY) whereas, no perforation occurred during 1500 consecutive colonoscopies performed with equipment from another manufacturer (Olympus America Corp., Melville, NY) ( p < or =0.06). The Pentax colonoscopes used in patients with barotrauma-induced cecal perforations insufflated air at a rate greater than 1.46 L/m at 80 mmHg intraluminal pressure. Olympus colonoscopes did not. In vitro maximum air-flow rates of 2 L/m at a tip pressure of 0 mm Hg separated the Pentax from the Olympus instruments ( p <0.022). Conclusions Colonoscopes with maximum flow rates of less than 2 L/m at 0 mmHg tip pressure have insufficient flow capacity to generate flows above 1.46 L/m at 80 mmHg intraluminal pressure and thus may protect patients from cecal barotrauma.     

Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients

Background: Colonoscopy using a standard adult colonoscope can be difficult or impossible when there is a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon or stricture. It is sometimes possible to traverse such segments using a smaller-diameter, more flexible pediatric colonoscope. Methods: For this prospective study, one endoscopist started 645 consecutive, elective colonoscopies with a standard adult Olympus CF-100L colonoscope (52% women, 48% men). There were 36 examinations (5.6%) in which the adult colonoscope could not be passed through a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon (n = 34) or a sigmoid colonic stricture (n = 2). In such instances (33 women and 3 men), the endoscopist switched to a pediatric colonoscope. Results: The pediatric colonoscope successfully reached the cecum in 21 of the 36 cases (58.3%). The figure was 38.5% for the older Olympus CF-P20L fiberoptic colonoscope (n = 13) and 69.6% for the newer Olympus PCF-100 videocolonoscope (n = 23). Concomitant conditions in the 34 patients in whom the pediatric colonoscope was used because of a fixed, angulated sigmoid included previous pelvic surgery in 22, pelvic radiation therapy in 2, pelvic endometriosis in 3, and two with previous sigmoid diverticulitis. Conclusions: The pediatric colonoscope, and particularly the newer Olympus PCF-100 colonoscope, is very useful in adult patients in whom it is not possible to traverse a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon or stricture using the standard adult colonoscope. This is predominantly a problem of female patients. Previous pelvic surgery may be an important causative factor in this regard. (Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:675-8.)     

Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The pediatric colonoscope is superior to the standard colonoscope in some patients with a fixed, angulated colon. A colonoscope thinner than the pediatric one is thought to outperform even the pediatric colonoscope in such cases. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of an ultrathin colonoscope, 9.8 mm in diameter, comparing it with pediatric and standard colonoscopes. METHODS: Three types of colonoscopes were used: ultrathin, pediatric, and standard. A total of 287 consecutive patients were assigned to three groups: ultrathin (n=94), pediatric (n=98), and standard (n=95). First assessment was the ratio of cecal intubation and the reasons for unsuccessful colonoscopy. The second was the time to cecal intubation. RESULTS: Cecal intubation rates were not different among three groups (96% in each). The main reasons for failed colonoscopy were looping in the ultrathin group, and angulation or stricture in the pediatric and standard groups. Mean time to the cecum was slightly longer in the ultrathin group (6.5 minutes) than the pediatric group (5.6 minutes) and standard group (6.1 minutes), but there were no significant differences among three groups. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy with the ultrathin colonoscope was as successful as with the pediatric and standard colonoscopes. The advantage of the ultrathin colonoscope might be notable in cases with stricture or severe angulation.     

The variable stiffness colonoscope: assessment of efficacy by magnetic endoscope imaging

BACKGROUND: Variable-stiffness colonoscopes combine the flexibility of pediatric instruments for negotiation of the sigmoid colon with the ability to stiffen the insertion tube to prevent or control looping after straightening. Previous studies have found wide variation in the efficacy of the stiffening mechanism. Thus, two studies were conducted to assess the potential benefit of the stiffening device and its optimal use. METHODS: In study 1, the effect of routinely stiffening the straightened variable-stiffness colonoscopes in the mid-descending colon was determined in 82 patients. Two insertions were performed (mid-descending colon to cecum) in each patient with and without application of the stiffening device (randomized). The time to negotiate the proximal colon (mid-descending to cecum), time to pass the variable-stiffness colonoscopes across the splenic flexure into the transverse colon, time to pass the right colon, and ancillary maneuvers used were recorded for each insertion. In study 2, consecutive patients, excluding any with previous colonic resection, were examined by using standard adult variable-stiffness colonoscopes. Real-time views of the procedure with magnetic endoscope imaging were recorded for all examinations, but procedures were randomized to be done either with (n = 88), or without (n = 87) the endoscopist viewing the magnetic endoscope imaging display. Whenever stiffening was applied, the anatomic location of the colonoscope tip and stiffness efficacy were recorded. RESULTS: In study 1, time taken to negotiate the proximal colon (p = 0.0041) and time to negotiate the splenic flexure (p = 0.006) were significantly shorter and ancillary maneuvers performed were fewer (p = 0.0014) with the stiffening device activated. In study 2, stiffening was used with similar frequency in patients examined with and without the magnetic endoscope imaging view, most commonly for passing the splenic flexure (71%), but also in the transverse colon (12%), right colon (9%), and sigmoid/descending colon (8%). Stiffening was significantly more effective when used in combination with magnetic endoscope imaging (69% with imager vs. 45% without imager; p = 0.0102). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the variable-stiffness device used was effective in controlling looping 57% of the time. Activating maximum stiffness appears to be effective once the sigmoid colon has been negotiated and the colonoscope straightened with the tip in the proximal colon, reducing the number of ancillary maneuvers and shortening the insertion time through the proximal colon. Routine magnetic endoscope imaging further enhances the efficacy of the variable-stiffness colonoscopes by helping to identify the optimal time for stiffening.     

170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates

BACKGROUND: Small polyps are routinely missed during colonoscopy even with careful examination. AIM: To determine and compare endoscopic efficiency and polyp miss rate between a prototype 170 degrees wide-angle (WA) colonoscope and a standard (S) colonoscope. METHODS: Two consecutive same-day colonoscopies were performed in 50 patients with intact colons. The patients were randomized to undergo the first colonoscopy with either the prototype WA 170 degrees angle of view colonoscope or an S adult 140 degrees angle of view colonoscope. RESULTS: The mean time for insertion was 2.09 (1.09) min versus 2.53 (1.47) min (p= 0.002) for the WA colonoscope and the S colonoscope, respectively. Similarly, the mean time for examination during withdrawal was shorter with the WA colonoscope (4.98 (0.94) vs 5.74 (1.12) min; p < 0.0001). The mean insertion time for the second examination was shorter than the insertion time for the first examination, irrespective of the colonoscope (p= 0.006). However, the withdrawal times were not significantly different between the first and second examinations (p= 0.11). The miss rate for all polyps with the WA colonoscope (19%) was similar to the miss rate with the S colonoscope (27%; p= 0.19). The miss rates for adenomas with the WA (10/33; 30.3%) and the S scope (15/50; 30%) were similar (p= 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the WA colonoscope was associated with a reduction in insertion time to the cecum, as well as examination time during withdrawal. No evidence was found that the accuracy of the two colonoscopes differs.     

Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy can be difficult in some women who have undergone hysterectomy, which can be associated with a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon caused by postoperative pelvic adhesions. Our goal was to determine whether colonoscopy is easier and more comfortable for women after hysterectomy when performed with a pediatric colonoscope, which is thinner in diameter and more flexible than a standard "adult" colonoscope. METHODS: One hundred women with a history of hysterectomy undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized in unblinded fashion to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (CF-100L or CF-Q140L, Olympus) or with a pediatric colonoscope (PCF-100, Olympus). All procedures were performed by a faculty endoscopist and timed. After examination, the endoscopist graded procedure difficulty, and patients were given a questionnaire that assessed their experience. RESULTS: The cecum was intubated more frequently in the pediatric colonoscope group than in the standard colonoscope group (96.1% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001). Success increased in the standard colonoscope group to 89.8% when the pediatric colonoscope was used to complete the examination. There were no differences in the two groups in terms of mean total procedure times (21.4 minutes vs. 22.6 minutes), mean doses of meperidine administered (57 mg both groups), mean doses of midazolam administered (1.5 mg vs. 1.7 mg), scales of procedure difficulty as graded by the endoscopists, and comfort scales as graded by patients. For the cases in which the cecum was intubated, the mean time to reach the cecum (11.7 minutes for the pediatric colonoscope group vs. 12.7 minutes for the adult) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric colonoscope is a reasonable choice for colonoscopy in women who have had a hysterectomy. Alternatively, if the endoscopist elects to start the procedure with a standard colonoscope, it is helpful to have a pediatric colonoscope available for use should a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon be encountered that cannot be easily or safely traversed with the standard colonoscope.     

Sedation-free colonoscopy using an upper endoscope is tolerable and effective in patients with low body mass index: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE: Small-caliber upper endoscopes can be used safely and effectively for sedation-free colonoscopy. The objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of a small-caliber upper endoscope (9.2 mm) comparing with a standard colonoscope (12.2 mm). METHODS: In a prospective trial, patients undergoing sedation-free colonoscopy were randomly assigned to the upper endoscope (E) or the standard colonoscope (C). Outcome measures included patient self-assessed pain score (4-point scale), endoscopist-assessed pain score (4-point scale), cecal intubation rate, difficult cecal intubation rate (>900 s), number of polyps detected, and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were entered. Clinical characteristics were not different between the two groups. Cecal intubation was achieved in 91.0% of the patients in each group. The mean patient self-assessed pain score (SD) was significantly lower in the E group compared with the C group: 1.44 (0.81) versus 2.08 (1.10), p < 0.001. The mean endoscopist assessment of patient pain score (SD) was significantly lower in the E group compared with the C group as well: 1.27 (0.67) versus 1.58 (0.90), p= 0.003. In patients with low body mass index (BMI < 22 kg/m(2)), the cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the E group (97.7%vs 79.4%, p= 0.026) and the difficult cecal intubation rate was significantly lower in the E group (9.3%vs 32.4%, p= 0.011). There were no significant differences in the number of polyps detected and complication rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: A small-caliber upper endoscope is tolerable and effective for sedation-free colonoscopy, especially in patients with low BMI.     

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the usefulness of a transparent hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope

OBJECTIVES: Considering the increasing demand for colonoscopy, auxiliary devices that could facilitate the examination would be useful. A hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope has been reported to be helpful in detecting and removing colorectal polyps. However, its usefulness in aiding scope intubation has not been fully evaluated. METHODS: Patients for colonoscopy between July 2004 and May 2005 in Tokyo University Hospital were enrolled to this randomized controlled trial, and assigned to colonoscopy with a transparent hood, a short hood, or no hood. Colonoscopies were conducted by trainees without sedation. The evaluated outcomes were cecal intubation rate, trainee intubation rate (cecal intubation within 15 min), cecal intubation time, and polyp detection rate. RESULTS: Enrolled 684 patients were randomly assigned to transparent hood (N = 221), short hood (N = 228), and no hood (N = 235) groups. The overall cecal intubation rate was 95.3% (652/684) and did not differ among the groups. The overall trainee intubation rate was 55.1% (377/684) and significantly higher in the transparent hood group than in the no hood group for female patients (60.7%vs 37.4%, P = 0.003). Cecal intubation time was 11.5, 13.5, and 14.0 min in the transparent, short, and no hood groups, respectively, and significantly shorter in the transparent hood group than in the no hood group among overall (P = 0.008), female (P = 0.001), and old (P = 0.04) patients. Polyp detection rate was higher in the transparent hood group than in the no hood group (49.3%vs 39.1%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The transparent hood was useful in shortening the cecal intubation time especially in difficult cases.     

A prospective trial of variable stiffness colonoscopes with different tip diameters in unsedated patients

OBJECTIVES: Few data exist comparing the clinical versatility of variable stiffness (VS) colonoscopes with different tip diameters and stiffness ranges. We compared the intubation time and success rate, maneuvering ease, and patient comfort of three colonoscopes: pediatric VS (PVSC), nonmagnifying adult VS (AVSC), and magnifying VS (MVSC).
METHODS: Two hundred sixteen consecutive patients scheduled for routine colonoscopy were randomized to undergo colonoscopy with one of the three different colonoscopes (PVSC N = 72, AVSC N = 72, MVSC N = 72). Outcome measurements included time required for cecal intubation, success rate for cecal intubation, maneuvering ease, and patient comfort.
RESULTS: The overall success rate for cecal intubation was 95.83%. Intubation time was significantly different among the groups (PVSC 12.88 ± 7.11 min, AVSC 9.25 ± 5.16 min, MVSC 9.62 ± 5.55 min; P < 0.01). Intubation time with PVSC required about 3 min more when compared with AVSC or MVSC. Multivariate analyses revealed that colonoscopy with AVSC required 3 min less when compared with PVSC ( P = 0.03). Age greater than 55 yr, waist circumference, prior hysterectomy, and pain experienced by patients were also factors affecting intubation time.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a PVSC might not decrease patient discomfort or intubation time. The ideal colonoscope is the AVSC that has a modest diameter and stiffness range and thus is capable of achieving both a short intubation time and an acceptable comfort level. We also should bear in mind that MVSC has an additional function of magnifying observation.     

Usefulness of pediatric colonoscopes in adult colonoscopy

Use of small diameter, extraflexible pediatric colonoscopes has proved to be valuable in adult endoscopy practice, not only for passing strictures and stomas but also where either fixation due to diverticular disease or postoperative adhesions, or unavoidably painful looping made passage of adult colonoscopes impossible. In 70 of 78 (92%) of the cases where the adult colonoscope could not be passed through the sigmoid colon by an expert endoscopist, the pediatric colonoscope passed through, often very easily. Fifteen of these patients were considered to have been saved surgery by successful passage. The "failure" rate for all colonoscopy examinations was only 2%; this low failure rate was attributable to the use of pediatric instruments whenever passage through the sigmoid colon proved to be impossible with standard colonoscopes. In our opinion every unit performing frequent colonoscopies should have a pediatric colonoscope available for selected adult patients as well as for use in children.     

Method of colonoscopy in 42 consecutive patients presenting after prior incomplete colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES: Cecal intubation is one of the goals of colonoscopy. We sought to describe the methodology used by a single experienced examiner to perform colonoscopy in a consecutive group of patients with challenging colons. METHODS: Records of 42 consecutive patients with one or more prior unsuccessful attempts at colonoscopy by a gastroenterologist or surgeon and referred for a repeat attempt at colonoscopy were reviewed. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was complete to the cecum in 40 of the 42 patients (95%). An array of methods was employed, including propofol sedation (n = 2), pediatric colonoscope (n = 8), an external straightener (n = 9), external straightener with pediatric colonoscope (n = 2), upper endoscope (n = 8), guidewire exchange (n = 3), and enteroscope with a colon straightener (n = 1) or an enteroscope straightener (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: A variety of methods and instruments were employed to achieve a high cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in a group of patients with prior incomplete colonoscopies. Others may find one or more of these methods useful in patients with challenging colons.     

Usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES: Although variable-stiffness colonoscopes have been developed, difficult or incomplete colonoscopies occasionally occur. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope (scVSC) as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopies. METHODS: First, we retrospectively reviewed the cecal intubation rate of colonoscopies in which an adult standard colonoscope (AC) was immediately switched to an scVSC in all patients in whom a colonoscopy with an AC was incomplete. Second, 374 consecutive patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy with a pediatric variable-stiffness colonoscope (PVSC, n = 123), AC (n = 125), or scVSC (n = 126). The scVSC was used by the same endoscopist to reattempt colonoscopy immediately after colonoscopy with a PVSC or an AC had been assessed as difficult or incomplete. The cecal intubation rate and time and the ancillary maneuvers used were evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-two (2.5%) of the 2,056 attempted colonoscopies with an AC did not reach the cecum. Fifty-one of the 52 patients (98.1%) had complete colonoscopies after the switch from the AC to the scVSC. The initial intubation rate and time were not statistically different among the groups: PVSC, 95% and 6.8 min; AC, 91% and 7.5 min; and scVSC, 98% and 8.2 min. Cecal intubation was achieved in all five patients (100%) and in 10 out of 11 (91%) patients, respectively, after the PVSC or AC was switched to the scVSC. CONCLUSIONS: The completion rate markedly improved after switching from an AC or PVSC to an scVSC in difficult or incomplete colonoscopies, although the scVSC does not appear to offer any distinct advantage over the AC or PVSC for routine colonoscopies.     

A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy remains technically difficult in 10-20% of procedures due to variable colonic anatomy and fixation. The ability to vary endoscope shaft flexibility may help insertion to the caecum. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending for day case colonoscopy were randomised to examination with either the conventional Olympus CF200HL (200HL) or a new variable stiffness (VS) colonoscope. Intubation time, use of stiffening function, and patient pain scores were compared. RESULTS: Of 100 cases, 43 were performed with the 200HL and 57 with the VS. Four incomplete examinations occurred with the 200HL (two sigmoid fixations, two benign strictures) and two with the VS (one obstructing cancer, one fixed sigmoid). Changing to the paediatric scope was successful in all but one patient from each group (obstructive lesions). Stiff mode was applied 23 times in 18 patients and was effective in 15 of these. Intubation time was quicker with the VS (median 6 minutes 32 seconds) than with the 200HL (median 10 minutes 35 seconds) (p = 0.0005). Pain scores were less with the VS (median 7) than with the 200HL (median 24) (p = 0.0081). CONCLUSIONS: The variable stiffness colonoscope combines paediatric shaft characteristics with the ability to stiffen when needed. This instrument significantly reduces intubation time and patient discomfort. Further comparisons should be made with the newest colonoscopes which are less stiff.