西甲硅油乳剂在结肠镜检查中的应用与研究

目的 研究西甲硅油乳剂在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中的应用价值.方法 将200例接受结肠镜检查的患者随机分为两组,实验组100例,对照组100例.实验组给予聚乙二醇电解质散+西甲硅油乳剂,对照组给予口服聚乙二醇电解质散.观察二组的效果.结果 实验组肠腔内气泡存在量明显少于对照组,术后腹胀程度明显轻于对照组,内镜医师操作满意度优于对照组(P＜0.05),而两组肠道清洁程度无差异(P＞0.05).结论 在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中应用西甲硅油乳剂能够消除泡沫,提高视野清晰度,减少术后腹胀等不良反应,提高术者操作舒适度,缩短操作时间.     

单倍剂量磷酸钠联合莫沙比利在结肠镜检患者肠道准备中的应用

目的 观察单倍剂量（45 ml）磷酸钠口服溶液联合莫沙比利用于肠道准备的效果及耐受性.方法 将同期拟行结肠镜检查的117例患者随机分为A组63例和B组54例,A组检查见1 d口服莫沙比利、检查日口服磷酸钠口服溶液45 ml, B组按常规方法服用双倍剂量磷酸钠盐口服液.记录肠道清洁效果及患者对肠道准备方法耐受程度.结果 A、B组肠道清洁效果满意率分别为93.7%（59/63）、94.4%（51/54）,患者对肠道准备方法耐受满意率分别为100.0%（63/63）、94.4%（51/54）,P均〉0.05.结论 单倍剂量磷酸钠盐口服液联合莫沙比利用于肠道准备清肠效果满意、患者耐受性好.     

不同剂量西甲硅油行结肠镜检查术前肠道准备的效果分析

目的探讨结肠镜检查术前使用不同剂量西甲硅油的肠道准备效果。方法150例结肠镜检查患者随机分成3组,各组50例,A．组使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散＋西甲硅油5ml进行肠道准备,A：组使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散＋西甲硅油10ml进行肠道准备,B组（对照组）单纯使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散进行肠道准备,比较各组在肠道清洁程度、祛泡效果、结肠镜检查操作时间、操作者对结肠镜检查的满意度以及患者对结肠镜检查的耐受程度方面存在的差异。结果A,组、A：组和B组祛泡满意率分别为98．0％（49／50）、100．0％（50／50）和80．0％（40／50）,各组比较差异有统计学意义（x^2=17．855,P=0．000）。而各组在肠道清洁满意率（x^2=1．500,P=0．472）、结肠镜检查平均操作时间（Z=-0．333,P=0．765）、操作者对结肠镜检查的满意度（x^2=6．303,P=0．178）以及患者对结肠镜检查的耐受程度（x^2=8．238,P=0．083）方面差异无统计学意义。结论结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中常规使用复方聚乙二醇电解质散的同时联合使用西甲硅油,在不明显影响肠道清洁程度和患者术中耐受程度的前提下,可显著提高祛泡效果,5ml西甲硅油的剂量基本可以满足临床祛泡需要,而10ml剂量的祛泡效果更好。     

胶囊内镜检查的肠道准备方法探讨

目的探讨改善胶囊内镜观察效果的肠道准备方法。方法拟行胶囊内镜检查的患者91例,随机分为两组,接受不同的肠道准备方法。实验组(n=46):检查前一天20:00吞服两片酚酞片,检查前15 min口服西甲硅油消泡剂30 ml,吞服胶囊内镜后饮用20%甘露醇溶液250 ml+温开水250 ml。对照组(n=45):检查当日凌晨5:00口服50%硫酸镁溶液100 ml+温开水2 000 ml。比较两组患者的不良反应发生率、肠道清洁程度和胶囊内镜的通过时间。结果实验组较对照组不良反应发生率显著降低(0 vs11.1%,P=0.026);实验组肠道清洁状况优于对照组(Z=-2.213,P=0.027);实验组与对照组胶囊内镜通过小肠的时间无明显差异[(265.2±70.2)min vs(323.6±77.8)min,P=0.073]。结论联合应用酚酞片、西甲硅油和甘露醇溶液进行胶囊内镜检查前肠道准备,可达到理想的清肠效果,且患者不良反应较少,值得在临床推广。     

复方聚乙二醇联合西甲硅油在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中的应用

目的:探讨复方聚乙二醇联合西甲硅油在结肠镜检查术前肠道准备中的应用价值.方法:选取2014-01/2015-12于郑州大学附属郑州中心医院消化内科内镜中心行结肠镜检查的682例患者作为研究对象,根据其就诊次序进行编号,并随机分为观察组和对照组.对照组患者于术前6 h口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散;观察组患者在术前6 h口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散的基础上,于术前4 h口服二甲硅油乳剂30 m L.比较两组患者的肠道清洁度、祛泡效果、检查操作时间及术后腹痛、腹胀等不良反应情况差异.结果:两组患者的肠道清洁度满意率均较高,其中观察组为93.3%,对照组为90.0%,两组间的差异无统计学意义(χ~2=2.316,P=0.128);观察组患者的祛泡满意率、祛泡一般率、严重气泡率分别为90.0%、8.2%及2.8%,对照组患者的祛泡满意率、祛泡一般率、严重气泡率分别为86.5%、7.0%、6.5%,观察组的祛泡效果明显优于对照组,且两组间的差异具有统计学意义(χ~2=9.690,P=0.008);观察组患者接受结肠镜检查的平均时间为11.6 min±3.1 min,低于对照组患者接受结肠镜检查的时间(12.3 min±3.8 min),且两组间的差异具有统计学意义(t=2.636,P=0.009).在术后不良反应方面,两组患者的腹痛发生率间的差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.951,P=0.163);但观察组患者的腹胀发生率为10.6%,明显低于对照组的16.7%,且差异具有统计学意义(χ~2=5.491,P=0.019).结论:复方聚乙二醇联合西甲硅油应用于结肠镜检查术前肠道准备工作中,可明显祛除肠道气泡,提高视野清晰度,利于检查者的操作,缩短检查时间,同时也可降低术后患者腹胀的发生率,适合应用于结肠镜检查的术前肠道准备.     

二甲硅油散在结肠镜检查术前准备中的作用研究

目的研究二甲硅油散在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用。方法对本院消化内镜中心2009年2月～2010年2月结肠镜检查患者连续选择642例进行前瞻、随机、对照系统研究。根据肠道准备方案的不同将研究对象随机分成实验组和对照组,各321例。实验组在结肠镜检查前口服30%硫酸镁50 mL＋二甲硅油散300 mg,对照组则口服30%硫酸镁50 mL而不服用二甲硅油散直接进行结肠镜检查。观察两组患者肠道清洁程度、肠腔气泡程度、肠道严重气泡率。结果两组患者的肠道清洁满意率均较高,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;实验组祛泡效果较好,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。实验组肠道严重气泡率明显低于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论本组研究发现实验组取得了较高的祛泡满意率和较低的严重气泡率,表明口服二甲硅油散具有较好的祛泡效果,适合广泛应用于结肠镜检查前的肠道准备中。     

西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用

目的: 探讨西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的应用.方法: 选择我院门诊和住院疑有大肠病变接受肠镜检查的患者100例, 随机分为对照组和研究组. 对照组应用导泻剂硫酸镁, 研究组在应用硫酸镁的基础上加用西甲硅油. 观察患者肠道清洁程度以及肠道内泡沫存在情况.结果: 研究组患者中肠道清洁效果AB级的百分比是86%, 而对照组AB级的百分比是88%,两组间比较差异无统计学意义. 研究组患者中祛泡效果Ⅰ、Ⅱ级的百分比是86%, 而对照组Ⅰ、Ⅱ级的百分比是68%, 两组间比较差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 4.574, P<0.05). 患者检查时间两组比较差异有统计学意义( t = 5.125,P<0.01).结论: 导泻剂配合西甲硅油可明显祛除肠腔内的泡沫, 提高结肠镜视野清晰度, 有利于内窥镜医生的操作和发现病灶.     

磷酸钠盐口服液与复方聚乙二醇电解质散在胶囊内镜检查前肠道清洁中效果的比较

目的比较磷酸钠盐与复方聚乙二醇电解质散在胶囊内镜检查前肠道清洁中的效果、患者耐受性。方法将60例行胶囊内镜检查患者随机分为A组和B组各30例,A组检查前口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散行肠道准备,B组检查前口服磷酸钠盐口服溶液行肠道准备。观察两组患者的肠道清洁度,患者耐受性。结果两组患者肠道清洁度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),患者耐受性差异恶心、呕吐、腹痛无统计学意义(P>0.05),磷酸钠盐口服溶液组较复方聚乙二醇电解质散组病人腹胀程度轻(P<0.05)。结论磷酸钠盐口服液与复方聚乙二醇电解质散在胶囊内镜检查肠道清洁中效果无明显差异,耐受性恶心、呕吐、腹痛无明显差异,但磷酸钠盐口服液较复方聚乙二醇电解质散腹胀程度轻,如果患者肠道准备前有腹胀等不适,使用磷酸钠盐口服液较理想。     

低剂量硫酸镁联合聚乙二醇电解质散在结肠镜肠道准备中的应用研究

目的 探究20 g硫酸镁联合低剂量聚乙二醇电解质散(PEG)在结肠镜检查前的肠道清洁效果。方法 选取2023年2-6月临沂市人民医院行结肠镜检查患者400例,采用随机数字法将患者分成A、B、C、D四组。A组：2 L PEG+30mL西甲硅油;B组：50 g硫酸镁+30 mL西甲硅油;C组：标准大剂量4 L PEG+30 mL西甲硅油;D组：20 g硫酸镁+2 L PEG+30 mL西甲硅油。观察记录患者波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评估的肠道清洁质量。次要结果是评估息肉检出率及不良反应发生率。结果 D组肠道准备充分率与C组相当(95.7%vs 97.7%),B组肠道准备充分率最低(78.8%)。全结肠及各肠段BBPS评分数据分析显示,D组和C组均有较好的肠道清洁效果,A组最差。四组息肉检出率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。四组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),D组未明显增加不良反应发生率。结论 20 g硫酸镁联合低剂量(2 L)聚乙二醇电解质散具有较好的肠道准备效果,且具有一定的安全性,可作为未来肠道准备的推荐方案。     

不同时间口服磷酸钠盐作肠道准备的效果及患者舒适度的比较

目的探讨不同时间口服磷酸钠盐进行术前肠道准备对患者舒适度的影响。方法选择泌尿外科择期手术患者360例,按随机数字表法随机分为观察组和对照组,每组180例。两组均应用磷酸钠盐口服溶液45 ml稀释后服用进行肠道准备,观察组术前1 d 16:00服药,对照组术前1 d 19:00服药。比较两组肠道准备的效果及患者舒适度情况。结果观察组患者肠道清洁效果及患者舒适度均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。结论择期手术患者术前不需要饮食限制下,术前1 d 16:00口服磷酸钠盐口服溶液作肠道准备清洁效果好,病人易于接受,副反应发生率低,明显优于术前1 d 19:00服药行肠道准备者。     

不同时间点服用西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的作用

【】目的 探讨不同时间点服用西甲硅油在结肠镜检查前肠道准备中的作用。方法 将270例拟行结肠镜检查的患者随机分为3组,所有患者均在结肠镜检查前4小时服用聚乙二醇电解质清洁肠道。A组：结肠镜检查前2小时口服西甲硅油30ml;B组：结肠镜检查前1小时服用西甲硅油30ml。C组：结肠镜检查前0.5小时服用西甲硅油30ml。观察3组患者的肠道清洁程度、肠腔内气泡情况、息肉检出率及操作时间。结果 三组患者之间的肠道清洁程度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与A组和C组相比,B组的肠腔内气泡明显减少(P<0.05),息肉检出率明显升高(P<0.05),操作时间明显降低(P<0.05)。A组和C组相比,肠腔内气泡情况、息肉检出率及操作时间无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论 结肠镜检查前1小时口服西甲硅油30ml可减少肠腔内气泡、提高息肉检出率,并缩短操作时间。     

Improving quality of colonoscopy by adding simethicone to sodium phosphate bowel preparation

AIM： To evaluate the effectiveness of simethicone in enhancing visibility and efficacy during colonoscopy.
METHODS： A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted. One hundred and twenty-four patients were allocated to receive 2 doses of sodium phosphate plus 240 mg of tablet simethicone or placebo as bowel preparation. Visibility was blindly assessed for the amount of air bubbles and adequacy of colon preparation. Total colonoscopic time, side effects of the medication, endoscopist and patient satisfaction were also compared.
RESULTS： Sodium phosphate plus simethicone, compared to sodium phosphate plus placebo, improved visibility by diminishing air bubbles （100.00% vs 42.37%, P 〈 0.0002） but simethicone failed to demonstrate improvement in adequacy of colon preparation （90.16% vs 81.36%, P = 0.17）. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were increased significantly in the simethicone group. However, there was no difference in the total duration of colonoscopy and side effects of the medication.
CONCLUSION： The addition of simethicone is of benefit for colonoscopic bowel preparation by diminishing air bubbles, which results in enhanced visibility. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction is also increased.     

Prospective randomized comparison of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol lavage for colonoscopy preparation

AIM: To compare the effectiveness, patient acceptability, and physical tolerability of two oral lavage solutions prior to colonoscopy in a Taiwanese population. METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either standard 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in a split regimen of two 45 mL doses separated by 12 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects who had completed the preparation. Secondary endpoints included colonic cleansing evaluated with an overall assessment and segmental evaluation, the tolerance and acceptability assessed by a self-administered structured questionnaire, and a safety profile such as any unexpected adverse events, electrolyte tests, physical exams, vital signs, and body weights. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.2% vs 27.5%, P<0.001). The amount of fluid suc-tioned was significantly less in patients taking NaP vs PEG (50.13±54.8 cc vs 121.13±115.4 cc, P<0.001), even after controlling for completion of the oral solution (P= 0.031). The two groups showed a comparable overall assessment of bowel preparation with a rate of "good" or "excellent" in 78.9% of patients in the NaP group and 82.5% in PEG group (P = 0.778). Patients taking NaP tended to have significantly better colonic segmental cleansing relative to stool amount observed in the descending (94.7% vs 70%, P = 0.007) and transverse (94.6% vs 74.4%, P = 0.025) colon. Slightly more patients graded the taste of NaP as "good" or "very good" compared to the PEG patients (32.5% vs 12.5%; P = 0.059). Patients' willingness to take the same preparation in the future was 68.4% in the NaP compared to 75% in the PEG group (P = 0.617). There was a significant increase in serum sodium and a significant decrease in phosphate and chloride levels in NaP group on the day following the colonoscopy without any clinical sequelae. Prolonged (>24 h) hemodynamic changes were also observed in 20-35% subjects of either group. CONCLUSION: Both bowel cleansing agents proved to be similar in safety and effectiveness, while NaP appeared to be more cost-effective. After identifying and excluding patients with potential risk factors, sodium phosphate should become an alternative preparation for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy in the Taiwanese population.     

Effectiveness and tolerance of duodenoscopic bowel preparation for colonoscopy]

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Bowel preparation for colonoscopy remains an unpleasant experience because oral solutions have unpleasant tastes and may provoke abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and sleep disturbance. Duodenoscopic bowel preparation is an alternative method for patients who are unwilling to take oral preparation solution or for those who are supposed to have both gastroscopic and colonoscopic examination on the same day. We assessed the effectiveness and tolerance of duodenoscopic bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients in group OA (orally administered) ingested 45 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP) in the evening before the day of procedure and in the morning on the day of colonoscopy, whereas patients in group EA (endoscopically administered) were prepared for the procedure by duodenoscopic infusion of 90 mL of NaP diluted with 180 mL of water into the second portion of the duodenum. After 4 hours, we assessed the overall quality of colonic cleansing, using a range of excellent to inadequate. The patients completed a questionnaire on their preparation-associated symptoms, tolerance, and preference. RESULTS: In group EA, sleep disturbance (p0.05) and nausea (p0.05) occurred less frequently than in group OA. Overall, the tolerance rating for preparation was higher in group EA. However, the quality of colonic cleansing and cecum intubation time was not different between the two groups. Patients in group EA who had ingested NaP in the past preferred duodenoscopic bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Duodenoscopic bowel preparation may play a role in colonic cleansing especially for patients who are scheduled to undergo gastroscopic and colonoscopic examination on the same day and for those who are unwilling to ingest NaP.     

Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate

BACKGROUND: Low-volume oral colonoscopy preparations are easier to tolerate and are gaining popularity at the expense of large-volume lavage solutions. The aims of this two-part study were to compare two oral colonoscopy bowel preparations, sodium phosphate (NaP) and magnesium citrate (Mg), and to assess the effects of timing and dilution of NaP. METHODS: Part 1 included 300 ambulatory patients randomized to receive NaP or Mg on the day before colonoscopy. Patients completed a questionnaire before colonoscopy. The endoscopist, blinded to the type of bowel preparation, rated bowel cleansing and recorded the presence of any rectosigmoid aphthous ulcers. In part 2, a total of 297 patients received NaP diluted into 3 doses 10 minutes apart the evening before and the morning of the day of colonoscopy. This group was compared with the group in part 1 that received NaP in two separate single doses entirely the day before colonoscopy. RESULTS: NaP and Mg were well tolerated. When preparations were taken the day before colonoscopy, Mg achieved better bowel cleansing (p < 0.001). Taking NaP entirely the day before colonoscopy resulted in poor right colon cleansing (27%). In contrast, taking NaP the evening before and morning of colonoscopy improved cleansing in the right colon (p < 0.001). Vomiting occurred less frequently with dilution of NaP. Rectosigmoid aphthous ulcers occurred more often with NaP (5.5%) than Mg (1%), p < 0.01. For patients who, according to questionnaire, had received a previous bowel preparation, NaP and Mg were both preferred over large-volume lavage solutions, whereas NaP was preferred over Mg. CONCLUSIONS: When taken entirely the day before colonoscopy, Mg is superior to NaP. Taking NaP the evening before and morning of colonoscopy improved bowel cleansing compared with taking it entirely the day before. Dilution of NaP reduces vomiting. NaP induces rectosigmoid aphthous ulcers more often than Mg.     

Sodium phosphate is superior to polyethylene glycol in bowel cleansing and shortens the time it takes to visualize colon mucosa

BACKGROUND: Both sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (PEG-EL) have been used to cleanse the bowel prior to colonoscopy, and recent reviews suggest that the former is the more effective and convenient cleansing regimen. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing effect of NaP solution with that of PEG-EL solution and to evaluate whether the cleansing effect correlates with the time needed to perform colonoscopy. METHODS: 111 patients admitted for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 90 mL oral NaP or 4 litres of PEG-EL solution. Cleansing was scored blindly by one colonoscopist and the following times were recorded: caecal intubation, withdrawal and total colonoscopy. RESULTS: Of all the patients included in the study, 99 were evaluable. The mean and standard error of the mean (+/-S(chi)-) cleansing score was 3.64 +/- 0.16 in the NaP group and 2.69 +/- 0.9 in the PEG-EL group (P = 0.005). The mean (+/-S(chi)-) caecal intubation times were 6.39 +/- 0.50 min and 5.39 +/- 0.41 min (P = 0.13), the withdrawal times 4.26 +/- 0.20 min and 5.78 +/- 0.34 min (P = 0.0001) and the total colonoscopy times 10.65 +/- 0.52 min and 11.17 +/- 0.56 min (P = 0.50) in the NaP and PEG-EL groups, respectively. The subgroup of patients with a cleansing score of 3 or more was associated with shortened colonoscopy withdrawal time compared to the group scoring below 3. CONCLUSIONS: Better cleansing of the large bowel shortens colonoscopy withdrawal time. Sodium phosphate is a more effective bowel-cleansing regimen than polyethylene glycol, and the better cleansing result is associated with shortened colonoscopy withdrawal time.     

Comparison of standard polyethylene glycol and two doses of oral sodium phosphate solution in precolonoscopy bowel preparation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy, side effects and patient acceptance of standard 4-liters polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 2 doses of sodium phosphate (NaP) solution for precolonoscopy colon cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 182 patients were randomized to receive either standard 4-L PEG (88 patients) or 80 mL of NaP (94 patients) in a split regimen of two 40 mL doses separated by 24 h, prior to colonoscopic evaluation. The primary endpoint was the segmental assessment of colonic wall visualization. Secondary outcomes included percent of assumed preparation, and the patient tolerance and acceptability. RESULTS: A significantly higher completion rate was found in the NaP group compared to the PEG group (84.3% vs 62.9%; difference, 21.40%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.29% to 34.51%; p = 0.001). PEG solution caused more nausea than NaP solution (p = 0.024). Patient acceptance for bowel preparation with NaP was greater (p = 0.019). Adequate colon wall visualization was achieved in similar proportion of patients in both groups with exception of the descending colon, where NaP regimen was superior (72.0% vs 52.9%; difference, 19.10%; 95% CI, 5.20% to 33.00% ; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of NaP solution, taken 24 h and 12 h before colonoscopy, tend to guarantee superior results in colonic cleansing with respect to standard 4-liters PEG solution. Taking the second dose of NaP 24 h after the first dose reduces side effects and allows achieving a more satisfactory compliance of the patient.     

Colon cleansing with oral sodium phosphate in adolescents: dose, efficacy, acceptability, and safety

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Standardized bowel preparation in children and adolescents has not been established. Our aim was to compare two bowel preparation regimens and determine which was more effective, acceptable, and safer for children undergoing colonoscopy.
METHODS: We compared the efficacy and acceptability of a 1-day regimen with oral sodium phosphate solution (NaP solution) (1 mL/kg/day, maximum 90 mL in two divided doses; regimen A) to our standard 3-day regimen magnesium citrate (4 mL/kg/day × 3 days, maximum 237 mL, followed by an enema the morning of colonoscopy; regimen B). After informed consent was obtained, 48 children were randomized (N = 25, 23, respectively). Weight, electrolytes, calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium were measured at screening and the day of the colonoscopy. Questionnaires were given to assess acceptability and adverse events. Endoscopists rated the quality of bowel preparation on a 4-level scale from excellent to poor.
RESULTS: Median age and weight at screening were 14 yr, 53 kg, and 15 yr, 51 kg in regimen A and B, respectively. No statistical significance was observed in electrolytes, phosphorus, or adverse events apart from higher nausea intensity in regimen A ( P = 0.012). Bowel cleansing was similar between groups (71% excellent or good). Subjects were more willing to repeat regimen A than B (77% vs 32%, respectively, P < 0.006). All 10 subjects who received regimen A and had prior colonoscopies using regimen B, preferred regimen A.
CONCLUSIONS: In a selected group of otherwise healthy children and adolescents over 10.5 yr and above 34 kg, 1-day oral NaP solution was more acceptable than 3-day magnesium citrate with an enema, and both regimens were found to be safe and efficacious.     

Colon cleansing before colonoscopy: Does oral sodium phosphate solution still make sense?

Oral sodium phosphate (NaP) solution has been withdrawn from the market in the United States but remains available for over-the-counter purchase for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in Canada. The present review summarizes recent data regarding the renal toxicity of oral NaP as well as its efficacy and tolerability relative to other preparations. Given the availability of effective alternatives to NaP solution, its use for colonoscopy preparation in Canada should be limited. Candidate patients for oral NaP solution should be assessed for eligibility and preparation instructions should adhere to the current recommendations for maximizing the safety of oral NaP.