Variable stiffness colonoscopes are associated with less pain during colonoscopy in unsedated patients

OBJECTIVES: Application of a new variable stiffness colonoscope (VSC) is expected to control loop formation and to lessen patient discomfort. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the efficacy of VSC with a conventional colonoscope (CC) in unsedated colonoscopy, based on the experience of examiners. METHODS: Four-hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to undergo colonoscopy with either VSC or CC by an endoscopist, including experienced and less-experienced examiners. The percentages of completed procedure and time to cecal intubation were recorded. Patients were asked to rate pain on a 5-point pain score. RESULTS: The percentages of completed procedure with VSC and CC were 98% and 95%, respectively, by less-experienced hands, and 99% and 98%, respectively, by experienced hands. Time for cecal intubation with VSC and CC was 15.7 and 18.5 min, respectively, by less-experienced hands, and 9.8 and 10.6 min, respectively, by experienced hands. A significantly lower mean pain score was noted in VSC patients compared with CC patients, irrespective of experience of the examiner. The percent of patients rating the procedure as moderately or severely painful was significantly lower with VSC than with CC, both in less-experienced (19% vs 40%; p < 0.01) and experienced hands (15% vs 26%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that VSC allows favorable examination compared with CC regarding completeness, time to cecal intubation, and comfort of patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy, irrespective of the examiner's experience. These features suggest VSC as the preferred colonoscope for patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy.     

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.     

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.     

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide in patients undergoing colonoscopy with patient-controlled sedation

BACKGROUND: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted to investigate the effect of the antispasmodic hyoscine N-butyl bromide (Buscopan) during colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 40 mg of hyoscine N-butyl bromide (n=60) or normal saline solution (n=60) intravenously as premedication. Colonoscopy was performed under patient-controlled sedation. Outcome measures included cecal intubation and total procedure time, demanded and administered doses of patient-controlled sedation, spasm score, pain score, endoscopist satisfaction score, patient willingness to repeat colonoscopy, and vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: Mean cecal intubation time in the hyoscine N-butyl bromide group was significantly longer than the control group (12.20 vs. 9.74 minutes; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The use of hyoscine N-butyl bromide was associated with a significantly lower endoscopist mean satisfaction score (6.47 vs. 7.30; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance), higher demanded and administered mean doses of patient-controlled sedation (respectively, 34.80 and 7.25 vs. 24.20 and 5.87; p=0.045; p=0.04, respectively; but correction for multiple testing of data removed these findings of significance), fewer patients willing to repeat colonoscopy (60% vs. 83.9%; p=0.005), and more hemodynamic instability (p<0.001) when compared with the control group. No significant difference was found in the total procedure time, spasm score, or pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide impedes colonoscope insertion and causes greater patient discomfort, as well as hemodynamic instability.     

Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison of 3 colonoscopes

BACKGROUND: The variable-stiffness colonoscope incorporates different degrees of stiffness of the insertion tube, which can be adjusted during the examination. Whether its use can lead to reduced procedure-related pain and sedative use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the use of 3 types of colonoscope with different shaft stiffnesses in relation to procedure-related pain and sedative consumption. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Endoscopy unit of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment was made of patients into 3 groups to receive colonoscopic examinations by one of the 3 types of colonoscope: conventional standard adult size, 1.3-m; 1.6-m; and the new variable-stiffness adult size, full-length (1.6-m) colonoscope. A mixture of propofol and afentanil, delivered by a patient-controlled syringe pump, was used for sedation in all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included dose of patient-controlled sedation consumed, pain score, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, requirement of abdominal pressure and change of patients' positions during colonoscopy, and endoscopists and patients' satisfaction scores according to a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were randomized. Patients in group 3 used significantly less propofol (in milligrams per kilograms, mean [SD]) compared with the other 2 groups (group 1: 1.00 [0.75], group 2: 0.93 [0.62], and group 3: 0.75 [0.65]; P = .02; 1-way analysis of variance). The mean (SD) pain score was also lower in group 3. LIMITATIONS: The endoscopists were not blinded. CONCLUSION: The use of the new variable-stiffness adult-size colonoscope significantly reduced procedure-related pain and doses of sedative medications during colonoscopy.     

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.     

Feasibility of full-spectrum endoscopy:Korea’s first full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopic trial

AIM: To evaluate the full-spectrum endoscopy(FUSE) colonoscopy system as the first report on the utility thereof in a Korean population.METHODS: We explored the efficacy of the FUSE colonoscopy in a retrospective, single-center feasibility study performed between February 1 and July 20, 2015. A total of 262 subjects(age range: 22-80) underwent the FUSE colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation. The cecal intubation success rate, the polyp detection rate(PDR), the adenoma detection rate(ADR), and the diverticulum detection rate(DDR), were calculated. Also, the success rates of therapeutic interventions were evaluated with biopsy confirmation.RESULTS: All patients completed the study and the success rates of cecal and terminal ileal intubation were 100% with the FUSE colonoscope; we found 313 polyps in 142 patients and 173 adenomas in 95. The overall PDR, ADR and DDR were 54.2%, 36.3%, and 25.2%, respectively, and were higher in males, and increased with age. The endoscopists and nurses involved considered that the full-spectrum colonoscope improved navigation and orientation within the colon.No colonoscopy was aborted because of colonoscope malfunction.CONCLUSION: The FUSE colonoscopy yielded a higher PDR, ADR, DDR than did traditional colonoscopy, without therapeutic failure or complications, showing feasible, effective, and safe in this first Korean trial.     

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 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.     

Comparison of Glucagon and Scopolamine Butylbromide as Premedication for Colonoscopy in Unsedated Patients

Purpose Premedication with glucagon or hyoscyamine is reported to be effective in reducing colonic spasm. However, these drugs can be associated with unfavorable events. This prospective study was designed to compare the effects of premedication with glucagon with those of scopolamine butylbromide on cardiopulmonary parameters, intubation time, and patient discomfort in unsedated patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Methods One hundred consecutive adult patients (65 males) undergoing colonoscopy without sedation were randomized toreceive 1 mg of glucagon (n = 50) or 20 mg of scopolamine butylbromide (n = 50), intramuscularly. Physiologic changes, including systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, were monitored before colonoscope insertion and at three-minute intervals during colonoscopy. The percentages of completed procedure and time to cecal intubation were recorded. Patients were asked to rate pain by using a five-point pain score (0 = no pain; 4 = severe pain). Results The percentages of completed procedure (96 vs. 98 percent), time to cecal intubation (16.3 vs. 14.5 minutes), and pain score (1.7 vs. 1.5) did not differ significantly between two groups. An increase in heart rate of more than ten beats per minute from baseline during colonoscopy occurred significantly more often in scopolamine group (44 percent of 50 patients) than in the glucagon group (12 percent of 50 patients; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between the two study groups with regard to changes in systolic blood pressure and decrease in oxygen saturation during colonoscopy. Conclusions Premedication with 1 mg of glucagon facilitates favorable examination with respect to physiologic changes compared with 20 mg of scopolamine. These features favor glucagon as the preferred premedication for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Presented at the meeting of Digestive Disease Week, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 15 to 20, 2004.     

Intermediate-length colonoscope needs more training duration than long-length colonoscope

Abstract

Objective. Few data are available on the influence of a colonoscope length for trainees, which could affect both the duration of training and colonoscopy quality. We conducted this study to validate which scope needs more duration for training to reach technical competence and to shows better quality indicators during diagnostic colonoscopy. Materials and methods. We conducted a prospective randomly assigned study from April 2010 to February 2011 at Asan Medical Center. Among the 1329 patients enrolled, 1200 colonoscopies were analyzed. We compared cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time (<20 min), and withdrawal time between the trainees using the intermediate-length colonoscope and those using long-length colonoscope. Results. Trainees who used the long-length colonoscope showed a higher overall cecal intubation rate (88.2% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.001) and adenoma detection rate (49.7% vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001) than those using the intermediate-length colonoscope. The successful cecal intubation rate improved significantly and reached the requisite standard of competence (>90%) after 90 procedures in the long-length colonoscope group. However, the trainees using the intermediate-length colonoscope reached the requisite standard of competence after 150 procedures. Logistic regression analysis revealed that prolonged cecal intubation was associated with the use of the intermediate-length colonoscope, poor colon preparation, a small number of esophagastroduodenoscopy or sigmoidoscopy procedures conducted, and pain during procedures. Conclusions. During the same training period, use of the long-length colonoscope in trainee was better in terms of reaching competency and quality indicators, and was less painful for the patients during colonoscopic procedures.     

Premedication with intravenous ketorolac trometamol (Toradol) in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial to investigate the effect of ketorolac trometamol (KT) administered intravenously as premedication in colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred and forty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 60 mg of KT (KT group (KTG), n=70) or placebo (normal saline group (NSG), n=70) intravenously as premedication 30 min prior to procedure. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) was used as the mode of sedation. Outcome measures included patient self-assessed pain score in a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS), endoscopist assessment of patient pain score in VAS, patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy, administered and demanded doses of PCS, patient satisfaction score in VAS, and hemodynamic changes during and after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean patient self-assessed pain score (SD) during procedure was significantly lower in KTG than NSG: 5.08 (2.74) vs 6.62 (2.45); p=0.001. The mean endoscopist assessment of patient pain score (SD) was significantly lower in KTG than NSG as well: 3.99 (2.80) vs 5.28 (2.71); p=0.006. More patients in KTG were willing to repeat procedure as compared with NSG (80.0%vs 57.1%; p=0.004). No significant difference was found in the administered and demanded doses of PCS, mean satisfactory scores and hemodynamic changes in both groups. No serious complication related to intravenous (IV) KT was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with IV KT (Toradol) improves pain control during colonoscopy with no associated serious complications.     

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.     

Clinical impact of endoscopy position detecting unit(UPD-3) for a non-sedated colonoscopy

AIM:To evaluate whether an endoscopy position detecting unit(UPD-3) can improve cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation times and visual analog scale(VAS) pain scores, regardless of the colonoscopist's level of experience.METHODS:A total of 260 patients(170 men and 90women)who underwent a colonoscopy were divided into the UPD-3-guided group or the conventional group(no UPD-3 guidance).Colonoscopies were performed by experts(experience of more than 1000colonoscopies)or trainees(experience of less than 100colonoscopies).Cecal intubation rates,cecal intubation times,insertion methods(straight insertion:shortening the colonic fold through the bending technique;roping insertion:right turn shortening technique)and patient discomfort were assessed.Patient discomfort during the endoscope insertion was scored by the VAS that was divided into 6 degrees of pain.RESULTS:The cecum intubation rates,cecal intubation times,number of cecal intubations that were performed in15 min and insertion methods were not significantly different between the conventional group and the UPD-3-guided group.The number of patients who experienced pain during the insertion was markedly less in the UPD-3-guided group than in the conventional group.Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the following factors were associated with lower VAS pain scores during endoscope insertion:insertion method(straight insertion)and UPD-3guidance in the trainee group.For the experts group,univariate analysis showed that only the insertion method(straight insertion)was associated with lower VAS pain scores.CONCLUSION:Although UPD-3 guidance did not shorten intubation times,it resulted in less patient painduring endoscope insertion compared with conventional endoscopy for the procedures performed by trainees.     

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.     

Preoperative colonoscopy through the colonic stent in patients with colorectal cancer obstruction

AIM:To evaluate the feasibility of a preoperative colonoscopy through a self-expendable metallic stent(SEMS)and to identify the factors that affect complete colonoscopy.METHODS:A total of 48 patients who had SEMS placement because of acute malignant colonic obstruction underwent preoperative colonoscopy.After effective SEMS placement,patients who showed complete resolution of radiological findings and clinical signs of acute colon obstruction underwent a standard bowel preparation.Preoperative colonoscopy was then performed using a standard colonoscope.If the passage of colonoscope was not feasible gastroscope was used.After colonoscopy,cecal intubation time,grade of bowel preparation,tumor location,stent location,presence of synchronous polyps or cancer,damage to colonoscopy and bleeding,and stent migration after colonoscopy were recorded.RESULTS:Complete evaluation with colonoscope was possible in 30 patients(62.5%).In this group,adenoma was detected in 13 patients(43.3%).The factors that affected complete colonoscopy were also analyzed:Tumor location at an angle;stent placement at an angle;and stent expansion diameter,which affected complete colonoscopy significantly.However in multivariate analysis,stent expansion diameter was the only significant factor that affected complete colonoscopy.Complete evaluation using additional gastroscope was feasible in 42 patients(87.5%).CONCLUSION:Preoperative colonoscopy through the colonic stent using only conventional colonoscope was unfavorable.The narrow expansion diameter of the stent may predict unfavorable outcome.In such a case,using small caliber scope should be considered and may expect successful outcome.     

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.     

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.     

困难无镇静结肠镜检查的危险因素

背景:结肠镜检查因其在结直肠疾病筛查、诊断和治疗中的重要意义而得到广泛开展。无镇静检查所致的不适和疼痛是结肠镜检查操作失败的原因之一。目的:分析无镇静结肠镜检查操作难度的影响因素。方法:纳入2017年1月—12月在同济大学附属第十人民医院行无镇静结肠镜检查的18~80岁患者,采集临床资料和既往史,术前在护士帮助下完成艾森克人格问卷。检查由富有经验的内镜医师进行,术后采用渥太华肠道准备评分量表和VAS量表评估肠道准备质量和检查中的疼痛程度。结果:结肠镜检查成功率为97.1%(198/204)。192例完成艾森克人格问卷的患者纳入分析,其中24例被判定为困难结肠镜检查(内镜插入回盲部时间>10 min)。单因素分析显示性别、年龄、体质指数(BMI)、手术史、疼痛程度和艾森克人格问卷E量表(内向/外向)评分与困难结肠镜检查显著相关(P均<0.05)。多因素分析显示,盆腔手术史是困难结肠镜检查的危险因素(OR=6.833,95%CI:2.396~19.488,P<0.001),超重(OR=0.190,95%CI:0.038~0.962,P=0.045)和人格介于内、外向之间(OR=0.367,95%CI:0.150~0.896,P=0.028)则是保护因素。结论:盆腔手术史、低BMI以及内向和外向人格可能增加无镇静结肠镜检查的操作难度。初级内镜医师在行无镇静结肠镜检查前可使用艾森克人格问卷E量表对受检者进行筛选以提高检查成功率。     

Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol

OBJECTIVES: Nurse-administered propofol has gained attention as a safe and effective means of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the effect of propofol on the technical performance of colonoscopy. METHODS: Three separate studies were conducted. In the first study, we reviewed procedure notes from consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist at our hospital endoscopy unit on patients sedated with either nurse-administered propofol (n = 162) or midazolam/narcotic (n = 164). In the second study, 100 eligible colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to receive either nurse-administered propofol (n = 50) or midazolam/fentanyl (n = 50). In both studies, the measured parameters included visualization of the cecum, time required to reach the cecum, repositioning of the patient, and the application of abdominal counterpressure. In a third study, we reviewed the rate of cecal intubation and colonic perforation in the first 2357 patients in our unit receiving nurse-administered propofol. RESULTS: In the retrospective comparative study, there was no difference in the cecal intubation rate in those receiving propofol (99.4%) compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (97%; p= 0.1), and three of five failed cecal intubations in the latter group resulted from obstructing masses. Patients sedated with propofol were repositioned less frequently compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (3.7%vs 26.2%) (p < 0.0001). Abdominal pressure was employed in 9.9% of patients sedated with propofol compared to 19.5% (p= 0.01) of those given midazolam/narcotic. The mean time to reach the cecum was lower in the propofol group than in the midazolam/narcotic group (4.6 min vs 6.0 min, p= 0.002). In the prospective randomized study, the endoscopist intubated the cecum in all 100 patients. Patients in the propofol group were repositioned less frequently than those in the midazolam/fentanyl group (2%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.001). The number of cases requiring abdominal counterpressure was not significantly different between the propofol and midazolam/fentanyl groups (12%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.1). The mean time to reach the cecum in the propofol group (3.2 min) was similar to that in the midazolam/fentanyl group (3.8 min, p= 0.08). Among the first 2357 patients in our unit undergoing colonoscopy with nurse-administered propofol, the rate of complete colonoscopy was 99.2% and there were no perforations. CONCLUSION: Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and simplifies the technical performance of colonoscopy compared to midazolam/narcotic sedation.