肠镜用水温度对注水法肠镜影响的临床分析

目的探讨不同温度的肠镜检查用水对注水法肠镜的影响。 方法随机对照单盲研究，纳入2017年8月至2018年2月因体检行肠镜检查患者300例，随机分为三组：注气组100人；注室温水组（22 ℃）100人；注加热水组（38 ℃）100人。由三名内镜医生随机进行单人肠镜操作，记录腹痛评分、达回盲部时间、检查成功率、息肉的检出率、体位变化、腹部按压、肠镜检查满意度、退镜时间、诊断结果等数据。 结果注气组、注室温水组、注加热水组的三组患者的腹痛评分（5.5±4.0；3.0±2.0；3.0±1.0）、达回盲部时间（187.00±131.25 s；268.00±89.50 s；250±103.50 s）、退镜时间（137.5±62.00 s；156.50±76.25 s；156.00±67.00 s）、肠镜检查满意度（74%；87%；90%）有统计学差异（P<0.05）；三组患者的检查成功率（94%；98%；97%）、息肉检出率（19.15%；24.49%；23.71%）、腹部按压及体位变化等均无统计学差异（P>0.05）；其中，腹痛评分注气组明显高于注水组（P<0.05），室温水组与加热水组间无差异（P>0.05）；肠镜检查满意度注水组明显高于注气组（P<0.05），室温水组与加热水组间无差异（P>0.05）；达回盲部时间与退镜时间注水组明显长于注气组（P<0.05），室温水组与加热水组间无差异（P>0.05）。 结论在非麻醉的肠镜检查中，注水法能够减少患者的腹痛，提高患者满意度，但与注气法相比会延长操作时间。水温的升高对患者的腹痛评分、到达回盲部时间、退镜时间、肠镜检查满意度、检查成功率、息肉的检出率、体位变化及腹部按压等无影响。因此室温水也可用于注水肠镜检查中。     

注水结肠镜与注气结肠镜检查240例临床对照研究

目的探讨注气结肠镜与注水结肠镜检查的舒适度及操作性。方法选取2016年6-9月在北部战区总医院内窥镜科接受结肠镜检查的240例患者,将其随机分为注气结肠镜检查组和注水结肠镜检查组,比较两组患者一般情况,记录检查的达盲率、时间、腹痛评分,随访腹痛、腹胀及再次检查是否选择无痛结肠镜意愿。结果注气组与注水组在一般情况、进镜成功率、进镜深度、检查后腹痛情况、再次检查选择无痛结肠镜等方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05);注气组疼痛评分明显高于注水组(P=0.001),注水组的进镜时间、退镜时间及操作总时间明显高于注气组(P0.001,P=0.013,P0.001),检查后1 h腹胀程度注气组明显高于注水组(P0.001),检查后6 h腹胀程度两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论注水结肠镜检查可明显减轻患者腹痛和检查后腹胀不适感,但其操作时间较注气法延长。     

温水灌注提高初学者结肠镜检查成功率的应用研究

目的对初学者结肠镜检查中采用灌注温水,代替传统注气法,观察对结肠镜检查成功率的影响。方法非麻醉结肠镜检查的门诊患者,随机分为灌注温水法(注水组)和传统注气法(注气组),比较初学者半年内两种方法的结肠镜检查成功率和学习曲线。结果初学者第2个月内,注水组10 min内结肠镜到达回盲部成功率为60.4%,明显高于注气组的37.0%(P=0.020)。半年内,注水组所有结肠镜检查的成功率为61.5%,明显高于注气组52.9%(P=0.014)。结论注水法可提高初学者结肠镜检查的成功率,是一项改善初学者结肠镜检查学习曲线的简便、有效方法。     

注水结肠镜检查对老年患者腹痛和炎症反应的影响

背景:老年患者行结肠镜检査的难度相对较大,检查过程中腹痛和组织损伤的发生率增加。目的:探讨注水结肠镜检查对老年患者腹痛和炎症反应的影响。方法:纳入2014年1月—2016年6月在南阳市第二人民医院择期接受结肠镜检查的老年患者40例,随机分入注水结肠镜检查组(注水组)和常规结肠镜检查组(注气组)。记录两组进镜、退镜时间,以视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估腹痛程度,以ELISA法检测检查前后血清炎症反应指标肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、C反应蛋白(CRP)水平。结果:注水组检查过程中的腹痛VAS评分显著低于注气组(P0.05),两组间进镜、退镜时间则无明显差异(P0.05)。检查前,两组间各血清炎症反应指标差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);检查结束即刻以及检查后6 h和24 h,注气组血清TNF-α、IL-6、CRP水平均显著高于检查前(P0.05),且高于同时间点注水组(P0.05)。注水组炎症反应指标的恢复快于注气组。结论:注水结肠镜检查可减轻老年患者检查过程中的腹痛感受,同时有效抑制机体炎症反应。     

注水法行结肠镜检查在便秘患者中的应用

背景:内镜医师普遍认为便秘患者行结肠镜检查的操作难度较非便秘患者相对增加。目的:分析注水法行结肠镜检查在便秘患者中的效果。方法:选择2010年11月~2011年11月江苏省苏北人民医院便秘患者200例,随机分为注水组和注气组。比较两组进镜时间、退镜时间、疼痛程度、满意度以及操作过程中是否需外界辅助。结果:与注气组相比,注水组患者平均进镜时间、退镜时间均无明显差异,疼痛程度明显降低(3.5±2.3对9.5±4.3,P0.05),满意率显著升高(90.8%对17.6%,P0.05),需外界辅助的发生率明显降低(体位变化:33.7%对73.5%、腹部压迫:16.3%对62.7%、调节镜身硬度:8.2%对21.6%,P0.05)。结论:对于便秘患者,注水法行结肠镜检查可明显减轻患者的疼痛不适,对顺利完成结肠镜检查有切实可行的应用价值。     

注水式结肠镜检查法的研究进展

1984年,FMchuk和Griffin发表了针对肠道多发憩室的患者,应用传统的注气式结肠镜检查失败时,改用注水的方式帮助寻找肠腔走行,顺利通过憩室段的报道,由此,开启了注水式结肠镜检查法的发展之路。注水式结肠镜检查方法是指进镜过程中应用注水法代替传统注气法,注水提供视野,到达回盲部后,改为注气,退镜过程中注气提供视野进行肠道病变检查的一种方法。近年来,国内外许多学者对注水式结肠镜检查法进行了大量的研究。本文从以下几个方面对注水式结肠镜进行综述。     

经皮穴位电刺激在超声胃镜检查中的应用效果观察

目的 探讨经皮穴位电刺激(transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, TEAS)在超声胃镜检查中的应用效果。方法 选取90例行超声胃镜检查的患者,按照随机数字表法将选入患者分为观察组(n=45)和对照组(n=45);对照组患者给予丙泊酚麻醉;观察组患者在TEAS 30 min后给予丙泊酚麻醉。比较两组患者丙泊酚用药量、检查时间、苏醒时间、不良反应发生情况、检查过程中不同时点的MAP、HR及BIS值;以及血浆β-内啡肽(β-EP)水平。结果 观察组患者丙泊酚用药量显著减少,苏醒时间明显缩短(P<0.05)。两组患者血浆β-EP水平在检查时均升高,但观察组升高更明显(P<0.05)。观察组在TEAS 30 min后MAP、HR、BIS值显著下降(P<0.05);两组患者在检查过程中MAP、HR、BIS值显著下降(P<0.05),组间比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。观察组低氧血症、呛咳等不良反应发生率显著降低(P<0.05)。结论 TEAS复合丙泊酚麻醉在超声胃镜检查中镇静镇痛效果确切,使得丙泊酚的用药...     

胃食管反流病微量射频治疗中射频导管球囊注水与注气的对比分析

目的探讨胃食管反流病(gastroesophageal reflux disease,GERD)微量射频消融治疗过程中,射频导管球囊注气与注水的安全性及有效性。方法选取2015年6月—2017年12月因GERD而接受微量射频消融治疗的患者80例,根据治疗操作方法不同分为射频导管球囊注气组45例和射频导管球囊注水组35例。对比治疗过程中患者的脱点率、手术时间、苏醒时间、治疗近期效果及远期效果。结果注气组和注水组患者的术前、术后1年、术后2年GERD相关生活质量评分组间对比,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。注气组的脱点率0.36%(13/3600),注水组的脱点率为0.32%(9/2800),两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。注水组手术时间较注气组短[(35±7.4)min比(45±8.6)min,P<0.05]。注水组复苏时间较注气组短[(10±3.4)min比(30±14.2)min,P<0.05]。结论微量射频消融治疗中射频导管球囊注气法和注水法相比较,有效性一致,但注水法可避免呛咳,更安全。     

匹维溴铵在80岁以上患者结肠镜检查中的应用

目的 探讨匹维溴铵用于≥80岁患者减轻结肠镜检查不良反应的作用.方法 治疗组30例于结肠镜检查前3 d开始服用匹维溴铵50 mg,每日3次,直至检查次日停药,对照组30例不服用此类药物,观察2组患者在结肠镜检查过程中腹痛、肠痉挛程度,并进行分级及评分.同时,观察肠道清洁程度,记录结肠镜到达回盲部所需时间.结果 治疗组腹痛、肠痉挛评分均明显低于对照组(P＜0.05).治疗组肠道清洁程度明显优于对照组(P＜0.05).治疗组结肠镜到达回盲部所需时间明显少于对照组(P＜0.01).结论 匹维溴铵用于≥80岁患者结肠镜检查对缓解腹痛、肠痉挛均有一定作用,并能改善肠道清洁度,缩短检查时间,减轻患者痛苦,疗效安全可靠.     

快充式经鼻湿化高流量通气在老年病人无痛胃镜联合结肠镜检查中的应用效果

目的 观察快充式经鼻湿化高流量通气(THRIVE)在老年病人无痛胃镜联合结肠镜检查中的应用效果。方法 选择拟行无痛胃镜联合结肠镜检查病人120例,年龄65～79岁,ASAⅠ～Ⅲ级,Mallampatti分级Ⅰ～Ⅱ,采用随机数表法分为鼻导管吸氧组(C组)和高流量吸氧组(T组)(n=60)。采用国际镇静工作组流程记录检查中与缺氧相关的不良事件以及处理措施;记录与缺氧无关的不良事件,包括无意识肢体运动、恶心呕吐、呛咳、鼻咽部不适、气道损伤、气压伤等;记录2组病人麻醉前(T₀)、插入胃镜后(T₁)及苏醒时(T₂)的血流动力学水平;记录丙泊酚用量、瑞芬太尼用量、检查时间与苏醒时间;记录麻醉医生、内镜操作者及病人满意度。结果 与C组相比,T组围术期缺氧、托下颌、面罩加压给氧、鼻咽通气道置入、无意识肢体运动发生率明显降低(P<0.05),丙泊酚用量增加(P<0.05),麻醉医生、内镜操作者及病人满意度明显提高(P<0.05),各时间点血流动力学水平、瑞芬太尼用量、检查时间和苏醒时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05...     

Water intubation method can reduce patients' pain and sedation rate in colonoscopy: A meta‐analysis

Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown that water infusion in lieu of air insufflation reduces sedation rate and pain score and increases cecal intubation rate in colonoscopy. The aim of the present study was to confirm the beneficial effects of the water intubation method over the air method. Electronic databases were searched to identify RCT reporting colonoscopy detection using the water method. The pooled data of sedation rate, pain score and other procedure‐related outcomes were analyzed. Then, 15 full‐text articles were selected and assessed. Nine trials with high‐quality scores were enrolled into this meta‐analysis including a total of 1414 participants. Pooled odds ratio (OR) of sedation rate was 0.392 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.288–0.533, P = 0.000). Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of pain score was ?1.543 (95% CI: ?2.107–?1.069,P = 0.000). Pooled OR of cecal intubation rate was 1.90 (95% CI: 1.29–2.82, P = 0.001). Pooled OR of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate were 0.805 (95% CI: 0.606–1.069, P = 0.134) and 0.913 (95% CI: 0.681–1.223, P = 0.168), respectively. Pooled WMD of cecal intubation time was 0.701 (95% CI: ?0.486–1.889, P = 0.247). This meta‐analysis confirmed that the water method significantly reduced sedation rate and degree of pain without decreasing cecal intubation rate and disease detection rate and without requiring more cecal intubation time, suggesting that the novel water method is better than the conventional air method in colonoscopy detection.     

Water-Related Techniques for Performance of Colonoscopy

Background Passage through difficult colonic segments, cecal intubation rate, time to reach the cecum, procedure-related discomfort, and medication requirement are important outcome measures of a colonoscopic examination. Several techniques of water infusion to aid insertion have been described. Raising awareness of these simple inexpensive methods may help to enhance colonoscopists’ performance. Aim To review water-related methods that facilitated colonoscope insertion. Method A literature search (Medline, PubMed) was conducted using the following terms: sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and water infusion, irrigation, or loading. The effects of water infusion in sedated and unsedated patients are tabulated and discussed. Results Five reports described the use of water infusion in conjunction with usual air insufflation. Enhanced cecal intubation, decreased time to reach the cecum, and attenuated abdominal discomfort were reported. Dose of medication used for sedation was not reduced. The sixth report described a novel method of water infusion in lieu of air insufflation during insertion. When patients accepted sedation on demand, the novel method permitted 52% to complete colonoscopy without sedation. Conclusion Warm water infusion as an adjunct to usual air insufflation enhances colonoscopy outcome. Randomized controlled trials comparing the novel method with usual air insufflation deserve to be considered.     

Comparison of Water Immersion Versus Air Insufflation Colonoscopy Under Various Bowel Preparation Conditions

Background: To investigate the differences between water immersion (WI) and air insufflation (AI) for colonoscopy under various bowel preparation conditions. Methods: In this study, 526 outpatients were randomly assigned to two groups, namely a WI group (n = 263) and an AI group (n = 263). During the procedure, the quality of bowel preparation, abdominal pain score, cecal intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), the intubation times, and other indicators were recorded. After reaching the cecum, each group of patients was subdivided into one of four grades (excellent, good, fair, and poor) according to the quality of bowel preparation.Results: Under various bowel preparation conditions, the pain scores of the AI group were higher than those of the WI group (P < .05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in CIR (P > .05). For the WI group compared with the AI group, the cecal intubation time (CIT) was prolonged under good bowel preparation (P = .045) and fair bowel preparation (P < .001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups on ADR in all patients (P = .476).Conclusion: Compared with AI colonoscopy, WI colonoscopy can decrease colonoscopy-related pain in patients for unsedated colonoscopy under various bowel preparation conditions, but there is no significant difference in CIR. WI colonoscopy requires longer CIT in patients with good and fair bowel preparation conditions. WI colonoscopy does not significantly increase ADR.     

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

AIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO₂ or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded.RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO₂ arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO₂ group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO₂ groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO₂) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO₂) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO₂) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO₂ group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms.CONCLUSION: CO₂ insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO₂ insufflation.     

Carbon Dioxide Insufflation or Warm-water Infusion for Unsedated Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients with Chronic Constipation in China

Aims:

The effect of carbon dioxide (CO₂) insufflation and warm-water infusion during colonoscopy on patients with chronic constipation remains unknown. We evaluated CO₂ insufflation and warm-water irrigation versus air insufflation in unsedated patients with chronic constipation in China.

Patients and Methods:

This randomized, single–center, controlled trial enrolled 287 consecutive patients, from January 2014 to January 2015, who underwent colonoscopy for chronic constipation. Patients were randomized to CO₂ insufflation, warm-water irrigation and air insufflation colonoscopy insertion phase groups. Pain scores were assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was real-time maximum insertion pain, recorded by an unblinded nurse assistant. At discharge, the recalled maximum insertion pain was recorded. Meanwhile, patients were requested to select the VAS at 0, 10, 30, and 60 min after the procedure. In addition, cecal intubation and withdrawal time, total procedure time, and adjunct measures were recorded.

Results:

A total of 287 patients were randomized. The correlation between real-time and recalled maximum insertion pain ((Pearson coefficient r = 0.929; P < 0.0001) confirmed internal validation of the primary outcome. The mean real-time maximum pain scores during insertion 2.9 ± 2.1 for CO₂, 2.7 ± 1.9 for water achieved a significantly lower pain score compared with air (5.7 ± 2.5) group (air vs CO₂ P < 0.001; air vs water P < 0.001). However, no significant pain score differences were found between the patients in the CO₂ and water groups (CO₂ vs water, P = 0.0535). P values in painless colonoscopy and only discomfort colonoscopy (pain 1–2) were, respectively, 6 (6.4%) and 8 (8.5%) for air; 17 (17.7%) and 29 (30.2%) for CO₂; 16 (16.5%) and 31 (31.9%) for water. At 0, 10, 30, and 60 min postprocedure, pain scores showed in the CO₂ and water groups had significantly reduced than in air group. Insertion time was significantly different between air (10.6 ± 2.5) and CO₂ (7.2 ± 1.4) (air vs CO₂ P < 0.001), air and water (6.9 ± 1.3) (air vs water P < 0.001). However, CO₂ and was not significantly different in cecum-intubated time (CO₂ vs water, P = 0.404). CO₂ and water group in extubation time were significantly different, respectively, CO₂ (7.9 ± 1.1) and water (8.0 ± 1.1) (CO₂ vs water, P = 0.707). CO₂ or water group required less implementation of adjunct measures and more willingness to repeat the procedure.

Conclusions:

Compared with air, the CO₂ or water-aided method reduced real-time maximum pain and cecum-intubated time for chronic constipated patients in unsedated colonoscopy. The CO₂ insufflation or warm-water irrigation may be a simple and inexpensive way to reduce discomfort in unsedated patients with constipation. This study demonstrated an advantage of using CO₂ insufflation and warm-water irrigation during colonoscopy in unsedated constipated patients in China.Key Words: Air insufflation, carbon dioxide insufflation, constipation, unsedated colonoscopy, warm–water infusion     

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.     

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...     

PEDIATRICS

Eduardo Ibarguen-Secchia , MD. *   * Pediatric Digestive Care, San Antonio, TX.
Purpose: To determine safety, tolerability and comfort of use of carbon dioxide for insufflation during colonoscopy in children.
Methods: After informed consent, a total of 84 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to use either air or CO₂ insufflation. Ages ranged from 6 years to 16 years (mean 12). End tidal carbon dioxide was recorded before the examination, at 2 minute intervals during the examination and 10 minutes after it. General anesthesia was used for sedation in all cases. Pain at 5 and 15 minutes after the procedure was measured using a ten-point analog scale.
Results: Pain scores at 5 minutes after the examination were 5.2 ± 0.3 for the air group and 4.8 ± 0.2 for the CO₂ group (no significant difference). At 15 minutes the score were 2.8 ± 0.3 for the air group and 0.7 ± 0.3 for the CO₂ group (significant at P < 0.05). End tidal CO₂ in both groups was no different.
Conclusion: Using CO₂ for insufflation during colonoscopy is safe and improves patient comfort. Patients who received CO₂ insufflation during their colonoscopy experienced less post-procedure discomfort. There was no evidence of CO₂ retention based on end tidal carbon dioxide monitoring.     

Unsedation colonoscopy can be not that painful: Evaluation of the effect of &ldquo;Lamaze method of colonoscopy&rdquo;

AIM: To evaluate the pain relieving effect of intervention with “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy. METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients underwent colonoscopy were randomly divided into three groups, Lamaze group, anesthetic group and control group. Two hundred and twenty-four patients of Lamaze group, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” were practiced in the process of colonoscopy. The Lamaze method of colonoscopy is modified from the Lamaze method of childbirth, which helped patients to relieve pain through effective breathing control. One hundred and seventy-eight patients in anesthetic group accepted sedation colonoscopy. For 183 patients in control group, colonoscopy was performed without any intervention. The satisfactory of colon cleaning, intestinal lesions, intubation time, success ratio, pain grading and complications were recorded. All data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences at base line of the three groups (P > 0.05). Anesthetic group shows advantage in intubation time than the other two groups (P < 0.05). Lamaze group shows no advantage in intubation time than that in control group (P > 0.05). The anesthetic group showed an apparent advantage in relieving pain (P < 0.01). Therefore, the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” performed in colonoscopy could relieve pain effectively comparing with control group (P < 0.05). The patients in anesthetic group had the highest incidence of complications (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The performance of the “Lamaze method of colonoscopy” in the process of colonoscopy could relieve patients’ pain, minimize the incidence of complications, and is worthy promotion in clinical practice.