Literature DB >> 11204989

Effect of variable stiffness colonoscopes on cecal intubation times for routine colonoscopy by an experienced examiner in sedated patients.

D K Rex1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Variable-stiffness colonoscopes allow passage of the rectosigmoid colon in a flexible mode, followed by stiffening to prevent looping. This feature might allow faster cecal intubation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients without previous colonic or rectal resection, inflammatory bowel disease, or anticipated need for either a pediatric or standard insertion tube were evaluated. Four Olympus colonoscopes, including a standard "adult" insertion-tube diameter variable-stiffness colonoscope (VSA), a pediatric variable-stiffness colonoscope (VSP), a standard "adult" colonoscope (CF-140) (SA), and a standard "pediatric" colonoscope (PCF-140) (SP) were used in rotation.
RESULTS: Among 358 consecutive patients, 99.2% of exams were complete to the cecum. The stiffening device was activated in 61% and 80% of the adult and pediatric variable-stiffness examinations, respectively. The examiner judged the device to be very useful, somewhat useful, and of no help in 46%, 44%, and 10% of VSA colonoscope examinations and 55%, 33%, and 12% of VSP colonoscope examinations. However, the mean cecal insertion time was 4.04 minutes, with no difference between the four colonoscopes (P=0.98). The percentage of intubations in < 2 minutes was 15.4%, 2-3 minutes 25.9%, 3-4 minutes 19.1%, 4-5 minutes 16.0%, and >5 minutes 23.7%, with no significant difference between the colonoscopes.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable-stiffness colonoscopes were frequently judged useful by an experienced examiner but did not impact cecal intubation times in sedated patients. Additional studies by other experienced and inexperienced examiners, as well as evaluation of additional technical improvements and evaluation in unsedated patients, are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11204989     DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-11179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  14 in total

1.  New endoscopy devices to improve population adherence to colorectal cancer prevention programs.

Authors:  Asimina Gaglia; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Wilfried Veltzke-Schlieker
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-07-16

2.  Relationship of colonoscopy completion rates and endoscopist features.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Does type of instrument influence colonoscopy performance and sedation practice?

Authors:  Ramesh-P Arasaradnam; Paul-D Hurlstone
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Comparison of single- versus double-balloon assisted-colonoscopy for colon examination after previous incomplete standard colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ivana Dzeletovic; M Edwyn Harrison; Shabana F Pasha; Michael D Crowell; G Anton Decker; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Jonathan A Leighton
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Transparent hood attached to the colonoscope: does it really work for all types of colonoscopes?

Authors:  Takashi Shida; Yosuke Katsuura; Osamu Teramoto; Makoto Kaiho; Shigetsugu Takano; Hiroyuki Yoshidome; Masaru Miyazaki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-23       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Usefulness of warm water and oil assistance in colonoscopy by trainees.

Authors:  Sung Chul Park; Bora Keum; Eun Sun Kim; Eun Suk Jung; Sehe Dong Lee; Sanghoon Park; Yeon Seok Seo; Yong Sik Kim; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hoon Jai Chun; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim; Ho Sang Ryu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  Cancer Care Ontario Colonoscopy Standards: standards and evidentiary base.

Authors:  L Rabeneck; R B Rumble; J Axler; A Smith; D Armstrong; C Vinden; P Belliveau; K Rhodes; C Zwaal; V Mai; P Dixon
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.522

8.  Routine colonoscopy with a standard gastroscope. A randomized comparative trial in a western population.

Authors:  Till Wehrmann; Izabel Lechowicz; Ksenia Martchenko; Andrea Riphaus
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  CO(2) insufflation for potentially difficult colonoscopies: efficacy when used by less experienced colonoscopists.

Authors:  Toshio Uraoka; Jun Kato; Motoaki Kuriyama; Keisuke Hori; Shin Ishikawa; Keita Harada; Koji Takemoto; Sakiko Hiraoka; Hideyuki Fujita; Joichiro Horii; Yutaka Saito; Kazuhide Yamamoto
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Patient self-administered abdominal pressure to reduce loop formation during minimally sedated colonoscopy.

Authors:  Yu-Hsi Hsieh; Kuo-Chih Tseng; An-Liang Chou
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-07-07       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.