Literature DB >> 17149552

A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of three methods of bowel preparation for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy.

A L Gidwani1, R Makar, D Garrett, R Gilliland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preparation for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy using a self-administered phosphate enema is the standard practice in our unit, but it provides acceptable bowel preparation in only 80% of patients. This study compared two methods of bowel preparation with the current standard in an attempt to improve efficacy and acceptability.
METHODS: From January to September 2003, patients scheduled for out-patient flexible sigmoidoscopy were prospectively randomized to 3 groups: group 1: one Fleet enema 2 h pre-procedure; group 2: two Fleet enemas, one on the evening prior to sigmoidoscopy and one 2 h pre-procedure; group 3: lactulose 30 ml orally 48 and 24 h prior to sigmoidoscopy, plus a single Fleet enema 2 h pre-procedure. A patient questionnaire was used to assess side effects and tolerance. The endoscopists questionnaire assessed the indication for the procedure, quality of preparation, depth of insertion, and pathological findings identified. Power calculations were based on the 80% acceptable preparation rate obtained using a single enema.
RESULTS: For this study, 305 patients were randomized to the three groups. Patient data were available for 261 patients (group 1 = 105; group 2 = 81; group 3 = 75), and endoscopist data were available for 251 patients (group 1 = 97; group 2 = 79; group 3 = 75). No difference was noted between the groups with regard to age, gender, procedure indication, grade of endoscopist, or patient acceptability variables (ease of use: p = 0.09; assistance required: p = 0.11; cramps experienced: p = 0.84; alternative method: p = 0.25). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of depth of insertion (p = 0.42-chi-squared test) or abnormalities noted (p = 0.34-chi-squared test). Nor was there any difference in the quality of preparation of patients in group 1 versus group 2 (p = 0.39-Fishers exact test) or group 1 versus group 3 (p = 0.13-Fishers exact). However, lactulose + Fleet resulted in significantly fewer patients with acceptable preparation compared with those who administered two Fleet enemas (p = 0.02- Fishers exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a Fleet enema or oral lactulose over and above a single Fleet enema gives no significant improvement in the acceptability or efficacy of bowel preparation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17149552     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-9111-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  12 in total

1.  Preparation of patients for GI endoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas O Faigel; Glenn M Eisen; Todd H Baron; Jason A Dominitz; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Hareth M Raddawi; John J Vargo; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbough
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Comparison of three forms of bowel preparations for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  M Herman; M Shaw; B Loewen
Journal:  Gastroenterol Nurs       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.978

3.  A comparison of bowel preparations for flexible sigmoidoscopy: oral magnesium citrate combined with oral bisacodyl, one hypertonic phosphate enema, or two hypertonic phosphate enemas.

Authors:  R K Fincher; E M Osgard; J L Jackson; J S Strong; R K Wong
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Prospective, randomized, single-blind comparison of two preparations for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  E J Bini; J S Unger; J M Rieber; J Rosenberg; K Trujillo; E H Weinshel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  B D Weiss; S Watkins
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 0.493

Review 6.  Bowel preparation for gastrointestinal procedures.

Authors:  Andrew R Brown; Jack A DiPalma
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2004-10

7.  A prospective randomized single blind trial of Fleet phosphate enema versus glycerin suppositories as preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  D Underwood; R R Makar; A L Gidwani; S M Najfi; P Neilly; R Gilliland
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 1.568

8.  A randomized trial comparing three methods of bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  E Osgard; J L Jackson; J Strong
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Population based randomized study of uptake and yield of screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with screening by faecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  J E Verne; R Aubrey; S B Love; I C Talbot; J M Northover
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-18

10.  Single blind, randomised trial of efficacy and acceptability of oral picolax versus self administered phosphate enema in bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

Authors:  W S Atkin; A Hart; R Edwards; C F Cook; J Wardle; P McIntyre; R Aubrey; C Baron; S Sutton; J Cuzick; A Senapati; J M Northover
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-03
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Improving the view during flexible sigmoidoscopy: a systematic review of published randomized, controlled trials comparing the use of oral bowel preparation versus enema bowel preparation.

Authors:  Muhammad Shafique Sajid; Jennifer F Caswell; Mustafa A Q Abbas; Mirza K Baig; Malcolm R McFall
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2015-04-18

2.  More Is Not Always Better: A Randomized Trial Of Low Volume Oral Laxative, Enemas, And Combination Of Both Demonstrate That Enemas Alone Are Most Efficacious For Preparation For Flexible Sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Lawrence Hookey; Samson Haimanot; Katherine Marchut; Stephen Vanner
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 4.488

3.  Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study.

Authors:  Calcedonio Calcara; Paolo Aseni; Keith Siau; Pietro Gambitta; Sergio Cadoni
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.485

4.  Clinical trial: free fatty acid suppositories compared with enema as bowel preparation for flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Orri Thor Ormarsson; Gudrun Marta Asgrimsdottir; Thorsteinn Loftsson; Einar Stefansson; Jon Orvar Kristinsson; Sigrun Helga Lund; Einar Stefan Bjornsson
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.