Literature DB >> 12024136

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

Syed G Shah1, Jim C Brooker, Catherine Thapar, Noriko Suzuki, Christopher B Williams, Brian P Saunders.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12024136     DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.124097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  14 in total

1.  Determining scope position during colonoscopy without use of ionizing radiation or magnetic imaging: the enhanced mapping ability of the NeoGuide Endoscopy System.

Authors:  Johannes Striegel; Ralf Jakobs; Jacques Van Dam; Uwe Weickert; Jürgen F Riemann; Axel Eickhoff
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Early use of magnetic endoscopic imaging by novice colonoscopists: improved performance without increase in workload.

Authors:  Sylvain Coderre; John Anderson; Remy Rikers; Paul Dunckley; Karen Holbrook; Kevin McLaughlin
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  The usefulness of a magnetic endoscope locating device in colonoscopy in daily practice: a prospective case-controlled study.

Authors:  Per Jess; Orhan Bulut; Ahmad Almasi; Peter Waaddegaard
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided.

Authors:  Arjo J Loeve; Paul Fockens; Paul Breedveld
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 5.  Magnetic endoscopic imaging vs standard colonoscopy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Yi Chen; Yu-Ting Duan; Qin Xie; Xian-Peng Qin; Bo Chen; Lin Xia; Yong Zhou; Ning-Ning Li; Xiao-Ting Wu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Does use of a colonoscopy imaging device improve performance? A cohort study.

Authors:  James J Wood; Christopher J W Foy; Roland Valori; Michelle E Lucarotti; Aidan L Fowler; Kevin Dowler; Timothy A Cook
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

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

Authors:  Masakatsu Fukuzawa; Junichi Uematsu; Shin Kono; Sho Suzuki; Takemasa Sato; Naoko Yagi; Yuichiro Tsuji; Kenji Yagi; Chika Kusano; Takuji Gotoda; Takashi Kawai; Fuminori Moriyasu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Christopher W Teshima; Sergio Zepeda-Gómez; Suliman H AlShankiti; Gurpal S Sandha
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Image Registered Gastroscopic Ultrasound (IRGUS) in human subjects: a pilot study to assess feasibility.

Authors:  K L Obstein; R S Estépar; J Jayender; V D Patil; I S Spofford; M B Ryan; B I Lengyel; R Shams; K G Vosburgh; C C Thompson
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 10.  Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sergio A Acuna; Maryam Elmi; Prakesh S Shah; Natalie G Coburn; Fayez A Quereshy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.