Clinical application of a new colonoscope with variable insertion tube rigidity: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Colonic loop formation can prolong colonoscopy, increase patient discomfort, and preclude complete examination. A colonoscope with variable insertion tube rigidity may facilitate colonoscopy. Our aim was to determine whether the use of a colonoscope with variable insertion tube rigidity reduces insertion time and improves patient acceptance of colonoscopy. METHODS: Fifty patients were randomly assigned to undergo colonoscopy with a conventional colonoscope or a variable rigidity colonoscope (VRC). Patient acceptance, dosage of medication, use of abdominal pressure, and patient repositioning were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by the 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test and an extension of Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, and medications required during colonoscopy. The cecum was reached in all 25 patients who underwent colonoscopy with the VRC, including 1 patient in whom the cecum was not reached at a previous colonoscopy with a conventional instrument. In the conventional colonoscopy group, the cecum was not reached in 4 patients (2 poor preparation, 2 loop formation). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to insertion time. In the group that underwent colonoscopy with the variable rigidity instrument, less abdominal pressure was required (p = 0.05), and nursing assessment of patient discomfort was more favorable (p = 0.05). There were no complications and no significant differences in the intubation time to cecum or in repositioning, patient acceptance, or patient assessment of abdominal pain. CONCLUSION:The use of a variable rigidity colonoscope reduced the frequency of abdominal pressure but did not affect intubation time to cecum, repositioning, patient acceptance, or patient assessment of abdominal pain.     

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.     

Impact of bending section length on insertion and retroflexion properties of pediatric and adult colonoscopes

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopes with short bending sections facilitate retroflexion but their effect on other aspects of colonoscope insertion are unknown. We sought to determine the impact of short bending on cecal insertion, terminal ileal intubation, and proximal colon retroflexion. METHODS: Two studies were performed. In study 1, we randomized 104 adult patients with intact colons to undergo colonoscopy with a standard pediatric colonoscope (Olympus PCF-160), a prototype pediatric colonoscope with short bending in four directions (PCF-AYL), or a prototype pediatric colonoscope with short bending in two directions, and normal bending in two directions (PCF-AY3L). In study 2, we randomized 70 patients with intact colons to undergo colonoscopy with a prototype 170 degrees wide angle colonoscope (CFQ160-WL) with a standard bending section length or to a prototype 170 degrees colonoscope with a short bending section (CFQ160-W2L). RESULTS: In study 1, the cecum was reached in all patients. Using the AYL, the cecal intubation time (4.08 min) was significantly longer when compared to both the PCF-160 (2.62 min; p=0.0001) and the AY3L (3.25 min; p=0.02). The AYL required the application of abdominal pressure (79%) and activation of the variable stiffness device (70%) more frequently when compared to both the PCF-160 (32%; p=0.0001 and 41%; p=0.02, respectively) and the AY3L (34%; p=0.0003 and 41%; p=0.02, respectively). Successful cecal retroflexion was possible less often with the PCF-160 (57%) when compared to either the AYL (94%; p=0.005) or AY3L (91%; p=0.001). The ability to intubate the terminal ileum was similar in all three groups (PCF-160 and AY3L 100%; AYL 94%) as was the time needed to intubate (p=0.73). Depth of ti intubation was deeper for the PCF-160 when compared to the AYL (p=0.0002) or AY3L (p=0.02). There was a trend toward deeper ileal intubation with the AY3L compared to AYL (p=0.09). In study 2, no difference was noted in cecal intubation time (p=0.1) or in frequency of application of abdominal pressure (p=0.28), position change (p=0.15), or activation of the stiffening device (p=0.46). Cecal retroflexion was successful more often when using the W2L when compared to the WL (p=0.00001). CONCLUSION: Short bending sections facilitate proximal colon retroflexion for both pediatric and adult colonoscopes, but can negatively impact cecal insertion and terminal ileal intubation in pediatric colonoscopes. A pediatric colonoscope with short bending in only two directions had good function for both cecal insertion and proximal colon retroflexion.     

Success rate and duration of paediatric outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: The paediatric colonoscopy completion rates have rarely been reported. AIMS: We sought to evaluate colonoscopy completion rate and compare the rates using colonoscope versus enteroscope. METHODS: We prospectively investigated 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy between July 1999 and June 2001. The following data were collected: demographics, type of endoscope used, extent of colonoscopy, indication for procedure, histology, adverse events and time to reach the caecum and the terminal ileum. RESULTS: Sixty colonoscopies were performed during the study period, 30 with an enteroscope and 30 with a colonoscope. The caecum was reached in 56/60 (93%) and the terminal ileum in 50/60 (83%). An average time of 12.61 min (S.D. 7.3) was necessary to advance the instrument from the anus to the caecum, and additional 3.67 min (S.D. 3.62) to terminal ileum. There was no difference in the success rate between enteroscope and colonoscope. Six patients (10%) had definitive diagnosis established because a full colonoscopy was performed. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Paediatric colonoscopy to the caecum can be completed safely and expeditiously in more than 90% of procedures. Various types of instruments do not appear to influence completion rate. Full colonoscopy contributes to the establishment of a definitive diagnosis.     

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.     

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.     

Complete Colonoscopy: How Often? And If Not, Why Not?

Objective: Colonoscopy completion rate is an easily measurable criterion of technical competency. Reporting of completion rates lacks uniformity, however, and few studies focus on colonoscopy completion alone. The purpose of this study is to establish criteria for consistency in the reporting of completion rates, so that colonoscopists are better able to use such reports to evaluate their own experience. Methods: A prospective study of colonoscopy completion rate and reasons for incomple-tion was carried out for 2907 patients. Completion was deflned as the colonoscope touching the end of the colon. Rates are reported as crude (all cases) and adjusted (excluding incompletions due to stool and disease). Resutts: The crude completion rate was 93.6% and the adjusted rate was 98.8%. Reasons for incompletion were stool (n = 47), colonic disease (n = 97), and pain or tortuosity (n = 34). The crude completion rate was lower in women than in men (92.4% vs . 94.8%), lower in the very young (<20 yr, 85.7%) and very old (>80 yr, 88.9%), was <90% in patients presenting with altered bowel habit, diarrhea, constipation, hemorrhage, inflammatory bowel disease, abdominal pain, or cancer, was only 53.8% in patients in intensive care units, was 84.1% in the author's first 127 cases, was lower in women post hysterectomy (92.8% vs . 98.3%), and was higher in patients who had had a colon resection [98.4% (right colectomy), 99.2% (left colectomy), 95.8% (intact colon)]. When adjusted rates were compared, most of those differences disappeared (except male vs . female, hysterectomy vs . no hysterectomy). Conctusions: Crude colonoscopy completion rates are affected hy a numher of factors that may make comparisons hetween colonoscopists difficult. The use of adjusted completion rates minimizes the effect of disease-related factors, allows completion rate to be a better reflection of technical ability, and may facilitate more uniform reporting of colonoscopy results.     

Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies

OBJECTIVE: Polyps are missed during conventional colonoscopy, even with meticulous technique. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a prototype wide angle colonoscope is associated with a reduced miss rate for polyps. METHODS: Two studies were performed. In study 1, a total of 50 patients underwent back-to-back, same-day colonoscopy by a single examiner with the prototype wide angle colonoscope and with a standard colonoscope, with the order of scopes randomized. In study 1, an attempt was made to keep examination time with the two colonoscopes equal. In study 2, a total of 20 patients were examined, 10 by the same colonoscopist who performed study 1 and 10 by a second colonoscopist. In study 2, examiners tried to perform the examinations as quickly as accuracy would allow. RESULTS: In study 1, the miss rate for all polyps was lower with the wide angle colonoscope (20% vs 31%; p = 0.046), although the mean examination time with the wide angle instrument was shorter (6.75 min vs 7.64 min; p = 0.0005). There was no significant difference in detection of adenomas. Polyps, including adenomas, were missed in the peripheral endoscopic field more frequently with the standard colonoscope. In study 2, wide angle colonoscopy was associated with reductions in examination time of 25% and 30% for the two examiners, respectively. Miss rates were the same for one colonoscopist but were higher for the other colonoscopist when the wide angle instrument was used. CONCLUSION: A prototype wide angle colonoscope did not eliminate polyp miss rates. Wide angle colonoscopy has the potential to reduce examination time and improve visualization of the periphery of the endoscopic field of view, but improvements in resolution are needed.     

Does fluoroscopic imaging still have a role in colonoscopy?

GOAL: To assess the use and value of fluoroscopic imaging in difficult colonoscopy. BACKGROUND: Few endoscopy centers have easy access to fluoroscopy to facilitate difficult colonoscopy. Its benefits are therefore unclear. Although interest in colonoscope imaging has recently been stimulated by magnetic imaging techniques, these are expensive and unlikely to be widely available for some time. STUDY: During routine colonoscopy lists, a mobile fluoroscopy unit was used when colonoscopy could not be completed in the absence of stricturing despite changes in patient position and application of external pressure. This retrospective review assesses the percentage of procedures completed with and without fluoroscopy. RESULTS: A series of 1551 procedures in adult patients without colon resection and with satisfactory bowel preparation was analyzed. The cecal intubation rate was 95.1% (1475/1551), rising to 96.5% (1475/1528) when impassable strictures were excluded. Fluoroscopy was used in 61 (4%) of the 1528 procedures without stricture, but allowed completion in only 13% (8/61). In the absence of stricture, fluoroscopy improved completion rate by only 0.5% (from 96.0% to 96.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy is seldom required and even then contributes little to success. Magnetic imaging, which provides continuous 3-dimensional images, may be more likely to speed and facilitate completion.     

Is the variable-stiffness paediatric colonoscope more effective than a standard adult colonoscope for outpatient adult colonoscopy?: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Trials with variable-stiffness colonoscopes have yielded conflicting results regarding efficacy and patient tolerance. AIM: We compared a variable-stiffness paediatric colonoscope with a standard adult colonoscope. METHODS: Two hundred and forty consecutive adult outpatients presenting for colonoscopy were randomised to either a variable-stiffness paediatric colonoscope or an adult colonoscope. If there was difficulty in performing colonoscopy with the assigned scope, the endoscopist was given the option of switching to the alternative instrument. In the condition of a severely fixed, angulated sigmoid colon, a final 'salvage' (backup) option was that of switching to an even thinner diameter paediatric colonoscope. RESULTS: The initial frequency of total colonoscopy was similar with the variable-stiffness paediatric colonoscope and adult colonoscope (95.8% versus 96.6%, p=1.0). Factoring in scope changes, the final frequency was 98.3% versus 99.2% (p=1.0). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of insertion time, doses of sedative medications, scales of procedure difficulty, or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Adult colonoscope and variable-stiffness paediatric colonoscope are both effective instruments for routine colonoscopy. In cases when the use of the initial scope is unsuccessful, switching to the alternative scope may permit passage to the caecum. There are occasional patients with fixed, angulated sigmoid colons in whom use of an even thinner diameter paediatric colonoscope can be helpful.     

Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy

AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist.PHL used white-light endoscopy(WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement(i-scan 1) on withdrawal,and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal.Patient age,sex,instrument insertion and withdrawal times,nurse assessed patient comfort scores,midazolam and fentanyl doses,procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group.Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test(for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test(for ordinal and continuous variables).RESULTS:Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups:413/425(97.2%) for OL and 55/58(94.9%) for PHL(P = 0.24).For complete colonoscopies,the two groups were well matched for age,sex,colonoscope insertion times(mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL,P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times(mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL,P = 0.2).Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort(mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group,P < 0.0001).While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups(mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL,P = 0.13),slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group(mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL,P = 0.035).There was no difference in polyp(58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma(49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups.Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas,nor the characteristics of these(including size,location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.     

Limited water infusion decreases pain during minimally sedated colonoscopy

AIM:To investigate a limited water infusion method in colonoscopy.METHODS:Consecutive patients undergoing minimally sedated colonoscopy were randomized to receive air insufflation(n = 89) or water infusion limited to the rectum,sigmoid colon and descending colon(n = 90).Completion rates,cecal intubation times,procedure times,need for abdominal compression,turning of patients and levels of discomfort were evaluated.RESULTS:Completion rates,total procedure times,need for abdominal compression,and turning of p...     

Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is one of the most frequently performed outpatient examinations. However, the procedure is still technically challenging, largely due to unpredictable looping during insertion. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the frequency of loop formation and types of loop during colonoscopy, (2) to determine the accuracy of the endoscopist's assessment of the anatomic location of the endoscope tip and of the presence and type of endoscope loop formation, and (3) to determine the efficacy of abdominal compression and change in patient position in promoting colonoscope advancement. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine, day-case colonoscopy were studied using real-time, three-dimensional magnetic endoscope imaging. All examinations were performed by expert colonoscopists, blinded to the imager view. The endoscopist estimated the position of the colonoscope tip, assessed when and what type of loop had formed, and the efficacy of ancillary maneuvers such as hand pressure or patient position change. The magnetic imager view of each procedure was recorded and retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred complete colonoscopies were performed. Looping occurred in 91% with N-sigmoid (79%) and deep transverse (34%) being most common. Most loops (69%) were incorrectly diagnosed by the endoscopist. Atypical loops were more common in women than men (p = 0.025). The endoscopist's assessment of tip location was correct 85% of the time overall, but 100% in the cecum. Abdominal pressure was less effective (54 of 145 times, 37%) than patient position change (95 of 144 times, 66%) in promoting endoscope tip advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Looping occurs frequently during routine colonoscopy. Although the endoscopist's assessment of tip location is fairly accurate, the majority of colonoscope loops are incorrectly appreciated. Although used frequently, ancillary maneuvers (abdominal compression and patient position change) are effective in only 52% of attempts.     

Factors Affecting Colonoscope Insertion Time in Patients With or Without a Colostomy After Left-Sided Colorectal Resection

Background/Aims

We examined whether the insertion time for colonoscopies performed after left-sided resection was different in patients with a colostomy from that in patients without a colostomy and identified factors that could impact colonoscopy performance.

Methods

We included consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between July 2005 and March 2011 after left-sided colorectal resection for colorectal cancer. We classified surgical methods according to the presence or absence of a colostomy and evaluated colonoscope insertion time retrospectively. Furthermore, we analyzed factors that might affect insertion time.

Results

A total of 1,041 patients underwent colonoscopy after left-sided colorectal resection during the study period. The colonoscopy completion rate was 98.6?%, and the mean insertion time was 6.1?±?4.6?min (median 4.7?min, range 0.3?C35.8?min). A shorter resection length of colon, the presence of a colostomy, and a lower endoscopist case volume were found to be independent factors associated with prolonged insertion time in patients with left-sided colorectal resection. Among experienced colonoscopists, no colonoscopy-associated or clinical factors were found to affect insertion time. However, a shorter resection length of colon, the presence of a colostomy, and poor bowel preparation were associated with prolonged insertion time among inexperienced endoscopists.

Conclusions

We identified three factors that affect colonoscope insertion time after left-sided colorectal resection, including the presence of a colostomy. Inexperienced endoscopists were much more affected by the presence of a colostomy after left-sided colorectal resection. These findings have implications for the practice and teaching of colonoscopy after left-sided colorectal resection.     

Use of a push enteroscope improves ability to perform total colonoscopy in previously unsuccessful attempts at colonoscopy in adult patients

Objective: Total colonoscopy with use of a standard adult colonoscope can be difficult in the presence of a redundant or angulated colon. It is often possible to traverse these areas with the use of a thinner, more flexible endoscope. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of completing total colonoscopy using a push enteroscope when a standard colonoscope was unsuccessful. Methods: A prospective analysis was performed for 721 consecutive colonoscopies attempted by two gastroenterologists. Those patients in whom complete colonoscopy was unsuccessful using the standard colonoscope (Olympus CF-100L) had attempts to complete colonoscopy using the enteroscope (Olympus SIF-100). The extent of each exam was recorded. Additional pathologic findings discovered by the use of the enteroscope and therapeutic interventions performed were additionally noted. Results: Colonoscopy using an enteroscope was performed in 32 patients with successful total colonoscopy in 22 patients (68.7%). Additional pathology was noted in nine patients who had successful complete colonoscopy using the enteroscope; adenomatous polyp (  n = 5  ), adenocarcinoma (  n = 1  ), bleeding source (  n = 2  ), and extent of colitis (  n = 1  ). Total colonoscopy rate using standard adult colonoscope was 93.2% (630 of 676) when cases with poor bowel preparation (  n = 23  ) and obstructing lesions (  n = 14  ) were excluded. When the results of successful colonoscopies with the enteroscope were included, the overall completion rate of total colonoscopy improved to 96.4% (652 of 676). Conclusion: The use of the enteroscope to help evaluate patients who have had incomplete colonoscopies with the standard colonoscope increases the diagnostic yield of colonic examination.     

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 of total colonic decompression after colonoscopy to improve patient comfort

OBJECTIVES: Bloating occurring after colonoscopy may cause significant discomfort in some patients. We sought to determine whether total colonic decompression decreased bloating and improved comfort after colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized to total colonic decompression or to the control group after completion of the routine colonoscopy. The colonoscope was advanced again to the cecum and the air aspirated during withdrawal in patients randomized to decompression and the procedure was terminated without decompression in control patients. Pain and bloating was assessed in the recovery room and in 24-48 h using a five-point scale. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were randomized to decompression and 61 were randomized to the control group. The baseline demographic and procedural characteristics were similar between the two groups, but decompression took significantly longer (median, 17 min vs 14 min, p = 0.0002). Seventy-five percent of the decompression group and 80% of the control group denied any pain during colonoscopy. Significantly fewer patients from the decompression group complained of bloating after the procedure (25% vs 59%, p < 0.001) when questioned in the recovery room. However, comparable patients complained of postprocedure bloating when questioned in 24-48 h after the procedure (45% of decompression group vs 47% of control group, p = 0.86). The nurse and the endoscopist were poor at predicting the patient's bloating and significantly overestimated the level of pain. CONCLUSIONS: Total colonic decompression does not significantly reduce bloating after colonoscopy when assessed 24-48 h after the procedure.     

Utility of single and double balloon endoscopy in patients with difficult colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

AIM: To compare the utility of single-balloon colonoscopy (SBC) or double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) for difficult colonoscopies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and June 2010, patients in whom total colonoscopy failed within 30 min of insertion were assigned randomly to undergo either SBC or DBC. No sedatives were used. After the endoscopy, all patients were asked to evaluate pain during the procedure on a 10-point analog scale (1 = no pain; 10 = worst imaginable pain) with a questionnaire. The study outcomes were the cecal intubation rate and time, endoscopic findings, complications, and pain score. RESULTS: The SBC and DBC groups included 11 and 10 patients, respectively. All but one SBC patient achieved total colonoscopy successfully. The cecal intubation times were 18 min (range: 10-85 min) and 12.8 min (range: 9.5-42 min) in the SBC and DBC groups, respectively (P= 0.17). No difference was observed in the prevalence of colon polyps between the SBC and DBC groups (45% vs 30%, P = 0.66). SBC showed advanced colon cancer in the ascending colon, which was inaccessible using conventional colonoscopy. The respective pain scores were 5 (1-10) [median (range)] and 5 (1-6) in the SBC and DBC groups (P = 0.64). No complications were noted in any patient. CONCLUSION: The utility of singleand double-balloon endoscopy for colonoscopy seems comparable in patients with incomplete colonoscopy using a conventional colonoscope.     

First clinical results with a real time, electronic imager as an aid to colonoscopy.

The early clinical results are described of a real time, electromagnetic imaging system as an aid to colonoscopy. After gaining experience with the use of the system, one experienced endoscopist was randomised to perform consecutive colonoscopies either with (n = 29) or without (n = 26) the imager view. All procedures were recorded on computer disk and replayed for retrospective analysis. Total colonoscopy was achieved in all patients except one (imager view not available). Comparing intubation time and duration of loop formation per patient, there was no significant difference between the two study groups. The number of attempts taken to straighten the colonoscope pre patient, however, was less when the endoscopist was able to see the imager view, p = 0.03. Hand pressure was also more effective when the endoscopist and endoscopy assistant could see the imager display, p = 0.02. Preliminary experience suggests that real time, electronic imaging of colonoscopy is safe, effective, and will improve the accuracy of the procedure.     

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.