Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy

AIM： To combine the benefits of a new thin flexible scope with elimination of excessive looping through the use of an overtube. METHODS： Three separate retrospective series. Series 1：25 consecutive male patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy using the new device at a Veteran＇s hospital in the United States. Series 2：75 male patients undergoing routine colonoscopy using an adult colonoscope, pediatric colonoscope, or the new device. Series 3：35 patients who had incomplete colonoscopies using standard instruments.
RESULTS： Complete colonoscopy was achieved in all 25 patients in the unsedated series with a median cecal intubation time of 6 min and a median maximal pain score of 3 on a 0-10 scale. In the 75 routine cases, there was significantly less pain with the thin scope compared to standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Of the 35 patients in the previously incomplete colonoscopy series, 33 were completed with the new system.
CONCLUSION： Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy is less painful than colonoscopy with standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Male patients could undergo unsedated colonoscopy with the new system with relatively little pain. The new device is also useful for most patients in whom colonoscopy cannot be completed with standard instruments.     

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.     

Methods of Reducing Discomfort During Colonoscopy

In the United States sedation for colonoscopy is usual practice. Unsedated colonoscopy is limited to a small proportion of unescorted patients and those with a personal preference for no sedation. Over 80% of patients who accept the option of as-needed sedation can complete colonoscopy without sedation. Colonoscopy in these unsedated patients is performed with techniques similar to those used in the sedated patients. Uncontrolled observations indicate willingness to repeat colonoscopy amongst these patients was correlated significantly with low discomfort score during the examination. Methods reported to minimize patient discomfort or enhance cecal intubation during sedated or unsedated colonoscopy included use of pediatric colonoscope, variable stiffness colonoscope, gastroscope, and inhalation of nitrous oxide or insufflation of carbon dioxide, hypnosis, music, audio distraction, or simply allowing the patients to participate in administration of the medication. Research focusing on confirming the efficacy of a simple inexpensive nonmedication dependent method for minimizing discomfort will likely improve the outcome of care and more importantly will ensure compliance with future surveillance in patients accepting the unsedated option.     

Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

Background and Aim: The technical performance of colonoscopy performed in deeply sedated patients differs from that performed without sedation or under minimal to moderate sedation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting cecal intubation during colonoscopy performed under deep sedation. Methods: A total of 5352 consecutive subjects who underwent a screening colonoscopy as part of a health check‐up between January 2008 and December 2008 at an academic hospital were reviewed. All endoscopies were performed with deep sedation using combination propofol or propofol alone. Data collected included characteristics of the patients (age, gender, body mass index, bowel habits, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, quality of bowel preparation, and presence/absence of colonic diverticula) and characteristics of the colonoscopists (experience level, colonoscopy procedure volume, and instrument handling method). These factors were analyzed to evaluate their impact on cecal intubation rates. Results: The crude cecal intubation rate was 98% and the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 98.3%. The mean cecal intubation time was 5.6 ± 3.2 min. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patient age greater than 60 years, constipation, poor colon preparation and a two‐person colonoscopy procedure were independently associated with lower cecal intubation rates. Conclusions: Colonoscopy performed under deep sedation by experienced colonoscopists results in high cecal intubation rates. Among the significant patient‐related predictors influencing the cecal intubation, the quality of the bowel preparation was the only modifiable factor. When performed by experienced hands, the one‐person method was associated with higher cecal intubation rates than the two‐person method.     

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.     

Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

AIM: To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).METHODS: Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as “usual” or “difficult” by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.CONCLUSION: Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

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.     

Unsedated Colonoscopy Introduced to Ensure Access is Acceptable to a Subgroup of Veterans

Background Nurses for monitoring and recovery are required for sedated colonoscopy. A nursing shortage necessitated discontinuation of sedated colonoscopy at a VA academic training program. Aim Elements of a case series that documented acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy are reviewed to raise awareness of the feasibility of this option. Method The pros and cons of sedation and no sedation were summarized. After discussion, patients who chose the unsedated option were scheduled for examination locally while those who desired sedation were scheduled at another VA site. Colonoscopy was performed by supervised trainees. Results From September 2002 to June 2005 scheduled unsedated colonoscopy was accepted by 145 of 483 veterans. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81%. Thus, of the cohort 30% had local access to and 24% completed unsedated colonoscopy. Implementation of unsedated colonoscopy obviated the need for two registered nurses previously required for sedated colonoscopy. Conclusion Unsedated colonoscopy offered as an option to ensure access was acceptable to a subgroup of our veteran patients. Implementation required less nursing resources. Techniques to enhance the cecal intubation rate of unsedated colonoscopy performed by supervised trainees deserves to be assessed in future studies.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A new water instillation method for colonoscopy without sedation as performed by endoscopists-in-training

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy may be associated with discomfort when performed without sedation. A study was conducted to determine whether instillation of water into the colon at the beginning of the procedure reduces intubation time as well as patient discomfort and pain. METHODS: Colonoscopy was performed in 259 patients by 3 endoscopists-in-training with limited experience. Patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. In one, a technique was used in which 500 to 1000 mL of water is instilled into the colon by enema at the beginning of the procedure (instillation group, n = 130). In the other, patients underwent a conventional colonoscopy (control group, n = 129). Intubation time was measured and compared between the groups, and subjective discomfort experienced by the patients was measured upon completion of the examination. RESULTS: Success rates for insertion to the cecum were similar, (95.4%, instillation group; 96.1%, control group). Detection rates for any colorectal diseases were not different between the groups (30.0% vs. 32.6%). Mean time to cecal intubation was 10.5 minutes in the instillation group and 16.2 minutes in the control group (p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who complained of abdominal pain during the procedure was 17.1% in the instillation group and 33.3% in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When used by endoscopists-in-training, the water-instillation colonoscopy technique was associated with less discomfort and faster cecal intubation with no decrease in the rate of detection of colorectal diseases.     

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.     

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.     

Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) during colonoscopy has the potential to ease caecal intubation and patient discomfort and to reduce dependence on sedation and/or analgesics (SAs). However, pain reduction by using MEI has not been demonstrated so far, probably because of the liberal use of SAs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of MEI on caecal intubation and patient pain during unsedated colonoscopy performed by experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive series of outpatients referred for colonoscopy were randomly allocated to examination with (imager group) or without (standard group) the use of MEI. Patients agreeing to SAs being given only on demand were included in the study. End-points were caecal intubation and pain, the latter to be graded by category on a form to be completed on the day after the examination. RESULTS: The proportion of colonoscopies performed without SAs was similar when comparing imager and standard groups and experienced with inexperienced colonoscopists; altogether 367(88%) out of 419 colonoscopies. The caecal intubation rate was higher in the imager group (190/212 (90%)) than in the standard group (153/207(74%)) (p<0.001), both collectively and separately for experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. A pain-reducing effect of MEI was shown only when performed by experienced colonoscopists, with severe pain in 10/137 patients (7.3%) in the imager group and 21/132 patients (16%) in the standard group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In colonoscopy without the routine use of SAs, MEI significantly improves the caecum intubation rate and reduces pain during the procedure.