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.     

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.     

PROPER SELECTION OF COLONOSCOPE ACCORDING TO GENDER,AGE AND BMI OF THE PATIENT

Background and Aim: Various types of colonoscope are available for total colonoscopy, including those with variable stiffness (VS) and/or magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI). Factors related to the patient, such as gender, age and body mass index (BMI), also affect the degree of technical difficulty associated with the procedure. The present study investigated, using retrospective analyses, which type of colonoscope was appropriate, in relation to gender, age and BMI, in order to overcome procedural difficulties. Methods: Three types of colonoscope (CF‐240I, fixed stiffness type; CF‐240AI, VS type; CF‐240DI, VS type with MEI) were used for a total of 433 consecutive patients who underwent total colonoscopy by five experienced endoscopists at Tokai University Hospital from August 2001 to August 2003. Cases with a history of abdominal surgery, requests by physicians for a particular type of colonoscope, or sedation during the procedure were excluded. Age, gender, body height and weight, and cecal intubation time (primary endpoint) were recorded. Results: Use of the VS scope resulted in a shorter intubation time in the subgroups of female, younger (age < 40 years) or older (age ≥ 60 years), and thin (BMI < 20 kg/m²) patients when compared with a conventional scope. There was no significant difference between results obtained with VS and VS + MEI in any subgroup. Conclusion: The VS type of colonoscope seems to be the best choice for an easier procedure in particular patient subgroups. In the present study, no advantage was demonstrated for VS + MEI over VS alone.     

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.     

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.     

Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients

Background: Colonoscopy using a standard adult colonoscope can be difficult or impossible when there is a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon or stricture. It is sometimes possible to traverse such segments using a smaller-diameter, more flexible pediatric colonoscope. Methods: For this prospective study, one endoscopist started 645 consecutive, elective colonoscopies with a standard adult Olympus CF-100L colonoscope (52% women, 48% men). There were 36 examinations (5.6%) in which the adult colonoscope could not be passed through a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon (n = 34) or a sigmoid colonic stricture (n = 2). In such instances (33 women and 3 men), the endoscopist switched to a pediatric colonoscope. Results: The pediatric colonoscope successfully reached the cecum in 21 of the 36 cases (58.3%). The figure was 38.5% for the older Olympus CF-P20L fiberoptic colonoscope (n = 13) and 69.6% for the newer Olympus PCF-100 videocolonoscope (n = 23). Concomitant conditions in the 34 patients in whom the pediatric colonoscope was used because of a fixed, angulated sigmoid included previous pelvic surgery in 22, pelvic radiation therapy in 2, pelvic endometriosis in 3, and two with previous sigmoid diverticulitis. Conclusions: The pediatric colonoscope, and particularly the newer Olympus PCF-100 colonoscope, is very useful in adult patients in whom it is not possible to traverse a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon or stricture using the standard adult colonoscope. This is predominantly a problem of female patients. Previous pelvic surgery may be an important causative factor in this regard. (Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:675-8.)     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The variable stiffness colonoscope: assessment of efficacy by magnetic endoscope imaging

BACKGROUND: Variable-stiffness colonoscopes combine the flexibility of pediatric instruments for negotiation of the sigmoid colon with the ability to stiffen the insertion tube to prevent or control looping after straightening. Previous studies have found wide variation in the efficacy of the stiffening mechanism. Thus, two studies were conducted to assess the potential benefit of the stiffening device and its optimal use. METHODS: In study 1, the effect of routinely stiffening the straightened variable-stiffness colonoscopes in the mid-descending colon was determined in 82 patients. Two insertions were performed (mid-descending colon to cecum) in each patient with and without application of the stiffening device (randomized). The time to negotiate the proximal colon (mid-descending to cecum), time to pass the variable-stiffness colonoscopes across the splenic flexure into the transverse colon, time to pass the right colon, and ancillary maneuvers used were recorded for each insertion. In study 2, consecutive patients, excluding any with previous colonic resection, were examined by using standard adult variable-stiffness colonoscopes. Real-time views of the procedure with magnetic endoscope imaging were recorded for all examinations, but procedures were randomized to be done either with (n = 88), or without (n = 87) the endoscopist viewing the magnetic endoscope imaging display. Whenever stiffening was applied, the anatomic location of the colonoscope tip and stiffness efficacy were recorded. RESULTS: In study 1, time taken to negotiate the proximal colon (p = 0.0041) and time to negotiate the splenic flexure (p = 0.006) were significantly shorter and ancillary maneuvers performed were fewer (p = 0.0014) with the stiffening device activated. In study 2, stiffening was used with similar frequency in patients examined with and without the magnetic endoscope imaging view, most commonly for passing the splenic flexure (71%), but also in the transverse colon (12%), right colon (9%), and sigmoid/descending colon (8%). Stiffening was significantly more effective when used in combination with magnetic endoscope imaging (69% with imager vs. 45% without imager; p = 0.0102). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the variable-stiffness device used was effective in controlling looping 57% of the time. Activating maximum stiffness appears to be effective once the sigmoid colon has been negotiated and the colonoscope straightened with the tip in the proximal colon, reducing the number of ancillary maneuvers and shortening the insertion time through the proximal colon. Routine magnetic endoscope imaging further enhances the efficacy of the variable-stiffness colonoscopes by helping to identify the optimal time for stiffening.     

Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on patient tolerance and sedation requirements during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Pain during colonoscopy is primarily related to mesenteric stretching from looping of the colonoscope insertion tube. Prompt recognition and removal of loops reduces patient discomfort and may lessen sedation requirements. Magnetic endoscope imaging allows real-time visualization of the colonoscope during insertion. The effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on patient pain and sedation requirements was assessed in a prospective randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 122 consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy by a single experienced endoscopist were randomized to have the procedure performed either with the endoscopist viewing the imager display (n = 62), or without the imager view (n = 60). Procedures began with administration of hyoscine-N-butylbromide alone, and sedative medications (midazolam and meperidine) were self-administered by the patient with a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Cardiorespiratory parameters were recorded and patient pain was assessed with a 100-mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The number of attempts at straightening the colonoscope was fewer (median 8 [0-66] vs. 15 [0-87], p = 0.0076) and the duration of looping less (median 4.5 min [0-27.3 min] vs. 6.4 min [0-29.4 min]), when the endoscopist was able to see the imager view. The total number of patient demands (by patient-controlled analgesia) for medication (median 1 vs. 2.5) and total doses of midazolam (median 0.44 mg vs. 0.88 mg) and meperidine (median 16.75 mg vs. 32.5 mg) administered did not significantly differ between patients examined with or without the imager. Patient pain scores were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic endoscope imaging allows accurate assessment and straightening of loops during colonoscopy, but without a significant reduction in patient requirements for sedative medication or improvement in patient tolerance. However, the dosages of sedation drugs used were small.     

Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy can be difficult in some women who have undergone hysterectomy, which can be associated with a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon caused by postoperative pelvic adhesions. Our goal was to determine whether colonoscopy is easier and more comfortable for women after hysterectomy when performed with a pediatric colonoscope, which is thinner in diameter and more flexible than a standard "adult" colonoscope. METHODS: One hundred women with a history of hysterectomy undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized in unblinded fashion to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (CF-100L or CF-Q140L, Olympus) or with a pediatric colonoscope (PCF-100, Olympus). All procedures were performed by a faculty endoscopist and timed. After examination, the endoscopist graded procedure difficulty, and patients were given a questionnaire that assessed their experience. RESULTS: The cecum was intubated more frequently in the pediatric colonoscope group than in the standard colonoscope group (96.1% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001). Success increased in the standard colonoscope group to 89.8% when the pediatric colonoscope was used to complete the examination. There were no differences in the two groups in terms of mean total procedure times (21.4 minutes vs. 22.6 minutes), mean doses of meperidine administered (57 mg both groups), mean doses of midazolam administered (1.5 mg vs. 1.7 mg), scales of procedure difficulty as graded by the endoscopists, and comfort scales as graded by patients. For the cases in which the cecum was intubated, the mean time to reach the cecum (11.7 minutes for the pediatric colonoscope group vs. 12.7 minutes for the adult) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric colonoscope is a reasonable choice for colonoscopy in women who have had a hysterectomy. Alternatively, if the endoscopist elects to start the procedure with a standard colonoscope, it is helpful to have a pediatric colonoscope available for use should a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon be encountered that cannot be easily or safely traversed with the standard colonoscope.     

Our sigmoid colon volvulus experience and benefits of colonoscope in detortion process.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The sigmoid colon is the most frequent site for a volvulus. In this report, we review our experience with sigmoid colon volvulus. METHODOLOGY: We present our experience of 81 cases of sigmoid volvulus admitted to our department. RESULTS: Preoperative endoscopic volvulus detortion was attempted in all patients, and in 39 of them the procedure was successful. The success rate of endoscopic detortion for sigmoid colon volvulus with a flexible colonoscope (60%) was higher than with a rigid rectosigmoidoscope (42%). In 19 of these 39 non-operatively devolvulated patients, sigmoid resection with primary anastomosis was performed within 7-10 days after reduction, but 20 patients did not accept the elective operation after a non-operative treatment. Among the 61 patients undergoing urgent or elective operation for sigmoid volvulus, there were 17 laparotomies with only detortion, 19 resections with elective anastomosis, 6 resections with primary anastomosis, and 19 resections with a Hartmann's pouch. There were 9 deaths (21%) among 42 patients who underwent an emergency operation, and one (5.2%) among the 19 patients who had elective surgery died because of a cerebral embolus. CONCLUSIONS: Initial therapy with endoscopy affords decompression and an adequate preparation of patients for surgical resection, and a flexible colonoscope has notable advantages over rigid instruments for the detortion process.     

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.     

Handcrafted two-channel colonoscope for grasping-forceps-assisted resection of giant pedunculated polyps

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopic polypectomy of giant pedunculated polyps has an increased risk of bleeding and is technically difficult. To facilitate the removal of the polyps, we handcrafted a two-channel colonoscope and applied it for grasping-forceps-assisted resection. METHODS: We easily handcrafted a two-channel colonoscope by taping a plastic tube along the shaft of a standard colonoscope and used it for the technique in 10 patients with 12 giant pedunculated polyps. OBSERVATIONS: The colonoscope with forceps assistance proved to be satisfactory for handling detachable and polypectomy snares. Immediate bleeding occurred in one patient because the detachable snare could not be maneuvered over the polyp. In 3 patients, the plastic tube became mobile during the procedure because the tape that attached the tube became loose. No other complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A handcrafted two-channel colonoscope for grasping-forceps-assisted resection of giant pedunculated polyps is effective for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding and the reduction of technical difficulties.     

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.     

Colonoscopic performance in a sedated health screening population: influence of colonoscope type

Background/Aims: Difficult or incomplete colonoscopes occasionally occur due to variable colonic anatomy and fixation. The aim of this study was to determine whether different types of colonoscopes used would affect the colonoscopic performance and sedation practice. Methodology: Consecutive patients attending for health examination were randomized to examination with either the Olympus GIF-Q260 (OS) or Fujinon EC-450 (FS). The cecal intubation rate and time were evaluated. The dose for sedation was also compared. Results: Among 86 subjects, 44 were performed with the OS scope and 42 with the FS. Intubation time was quicker with the FS than OS (3.6±0.3 vs. 4.7±0.4min, p=0.024). The intubation rate was not statistically different between the OS and FS groups (p=ns). The total dose of sedation used was similar between OS and FS groups (p=ns). The intubation time correlated negatively with body weight (r=-0.28, p=0.01). Conclusions: The FS colonoscope appears to provide additional advantage by improving the speed of cecal intubation without compromising the intubation rate or increasing sedation dose, although the two types of colonoscopes are equally efficient in colonoscopic performance.     

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.     

Advances in colonic imaging: technical improvements in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy has been available since the early 1970s and has become critical to the diagnosis and management of colorectal disorders. Features of the modern colonoscope and its variants are discussed, including the role of paediatric and variable stiffness colonoscopes for difficult insertion. The place of magnetic endoscope imaging systems and simulators in routine colonoscopy and training are examined. Finally, several recent innovations are used to illustrate how colonoscopy may evolve in the future, including new takes on the current instrument as well as potentially revolutionary pain-free, technically-easy, robotic devices for examination of the bowel.     

Paediatric cardiac surgery and autoevaluation: risk score, complexity score and graphic analysis

The creation of a paediatric surgical unit requires autoevaluation in order to: assess the quality of the results with respect to recognised international standards, answer the family's questions about the results obtained and adhere to criteria of accreditation Between January 2003 and December 2004, 201 consecutive patients, children (N= 164) or operated for adult congenital heart disease (N= 37) were treated. No patient was excluded. The RACHS-1 risk score, the ARISTOTLE scores of complexity and performance and the CUSUM and VLAD graphic analyses were applied to the study of hospital mortality. An original "variable performance-adjusted display" (VPAD) graphic analysis was performed to show up any possible variations of performance. Paediatric hospital survival was 97.56% (95% CI: 93.9 - 99.1). The paediatric complexity and performance scores were 6.79 +/- 0.22 and 6.62 respectively. In the absence of statistical significance in this field of autoevaluation, graphic analyses indicated the performance of our unit with no "learning" curves. Graphic scores and analyses allow assessment of the function of a paediatric cardiac surgical unit and the variations of complexity with respect to time, before the appearance of statistical significance. The ARISTOTLE complexity and performance scores and their adaptation in VPAD seem to be more reliable and discriminating than the RACHS-1 score.