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.
RCT Entities:
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.