A Pinfield1, M D Stringer. 1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: To undertake a prospective, single blind, randomised trial comparing the efficacy and tolerance of two outpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation regimens. METHODS:Patients aged between 18 months and 16 years being admitted for day case colonoscopy were allocated randomly to receive either Picolax (an oral, sugar free powder containing sodium picosulphate 10 mg/sachet with magnesium citrate) and clear fluids or bisacodyl tablets with an unrestricted diet and a phosphate enema just before colonoscopy. Patient compliance, bowel frequency, and associated symptoms were recorded, and the adequacy of the bowel preparation was assessed in a blinded manner. RESULTS:63 of 66 patients completed the trial. Mean age, mean weight, extent of colonoscopy, and distribution of underlying pathology were similar in both groups. Bowel preparation was good or excellent in all of the patients in the Picolax group (n = 32) compared with 22 patients in the bisacodyl/phosphate enema group (n = 31). The latter group experienced more abdominal discomfort during bowel preparation but three of the Picolax group vomited and the lack of solid food distressed some children. CONCLUSIONS: All bowel preparation methods have limitations and unpleasant side effects but the use of Picolax and clear fluids proved superior to bisacodyl tablets and a phosphate enema in children undergoing day case colonoscopy.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To undertake a prospective, single blind, randomised trial comparing the efficacy and tolerance of two outpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation regimens. METHODS:Patients aged between 18 months and 16 years being admitted for day case colonoscopy were allocated randomly to receive either Picolax (an oral, sugar free powder containing sodium picosulphate 10 mg/sachet with magnesium citrate) and clear fluids or bisacodyl tablets with an unrestricted diet and a phosphate enema just before colonoscopy. Patient compliance, bowel frequency, and associated symptoms were recorded, and the adequacy of the bowel preparation was assessed in a blinded manner. RESULTS: 63 of 66 patients completed the trial. Mean age, mean weight, extent of colonoscopy, and distribution of underlying pathology were similar in both groups. Bowel preparation was good or excellent in all of the patients in the Picolax group (n = 32) compared with 22 patients in the bisacodyl/phosphate enema group (n = 31). The latter group experienced more abdominal discomfort during bowel preparation but three of the Picolax group vomited and the lack of solid food distressed some children. CONCLUSIONS: All bowel preparation methods have limitations and unpleasant side effects but the use of Picolax and clear fluids proved superior to bisacodyl tablets and a phosphate enema in children undergoing day case colonoscopy.
Authors: C B Williams; N J Laage; C A Campbell; J R Douglas; J A Walker-Smith; I W Booth; J T Harries Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 1982-01 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Alan Barkun; Naoki Chiba; Robert Enns; Margaret Marcon; Susan Natsheh; Co Pham; Dan Sadowski; Stephen Vanner Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Carolina Jimenez-Rivera; Donna Haas; Margaret Boland; Janice L Barkey; David R Mack Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2009-12-06 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Thomas Berger; Martin Classen; Harald Engelhardt; Klaus-Michael Keller; Martin W Laass; Ralph Melchior; Carsten Posovszky; Burkhard Rodeck; Katharina Schaper; Rolf Behrens Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2016-06-02
Authors: Carmen Cuffari; Steven L Ciciora; Masakazu Ando; Mena Boules; Joseph M Croffie Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 5.742