Michael Christian Sulz1, Remus Frei2, Gian-Marco Semadeni2, Mikael Sawatzki2, Jan Borovicka2, Christa Meyenberger2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. michael.sulz@kssg.ch. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of cecal intubation is a well-recognized quality measure of successful colonoscopy. Infrequently, the standard colonoscopy techniques fail to achieve complete examination. The role of single-balloon overtube-assisted colonoscopy (SBC) in these situations has only been sparsely studied. This prospective single-center study aimed to investigate the technical success (rate of cecal intubation) and the diagnostic gain of SBC. METHODS: The study recruited consecutive patients with previous incomplete standard colonoscopy who were admitted for SBC at our tertiary center in Eastern Switzerland between February 2008 and October 2014. The primary outcome was defined as successful cecal intubation. Data on patient characteristics, indication, technical details of procedure, and outcome were collected prospectively. The Olympus enteroscope SIF-Q180 was used. RESULTS: The study included 100 consecutive patients (median age 70 years; range 38-87 years; 54 % female) who were examined using a single-balloon overtube-assisted technique. The cecal intubation rate was 98 % (98/100). The median time of total procedure was 54 min (range 15-119 min); the median time to reach the cecal pole was 27.5 min (range 4-92 min). Passage of the sigmoid colon was not possible in two cases with a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon. The diagnostic gain was 21 % regarding adenomatous polyps in the right colon. The complication rate was 2 % (2/100, minor) without need for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective patient cohort study shows that single-balloon colonoscopy is a safe and effective procedure to achieve a complete endoscopic examination in patients with a previous failed standard colonoscopy. A significant diagnostic and therapeutic gain in the right colon justifies additional procedure time.
BACKGROUND: The rate of cecal intubation is a well-recognized quality measure of successful colonoscopy. Infrequently, the standard colonoscopy techniques fail to achieve complete examination. The role of single-balloon overtube-assisted colonoscopy (SBC) in these situations has only been sparsely studied. This prospective single-center study aimed to investigate the technical success (rate of cecal intubation) and the diagnostic gain of SBC. METHODS: The study recruited consecutive patients with previous incomplete standard colonoscopy who were admitted for SBC at our tertiary center in Eastern Switzerland between February 2008 and October 2014. The primary outcome was defined as successful cecal intubation. Data on patient characteristics, indication, technical details of procedure, and outcome were collected prospectively. The Olympus enteroscope SIF-Q180 was used. RESULTS: The study included 100 consecutive patients (median age 70 years; range 38-87 years; 54 % female) who were examined using a single-balloon overtube-assisted technique. The cecal intubation rate was 98 % (98/100). The median time of total procedure was 54 min (range 15-119 min); the median time to reach the cecal pole was 27.5 min (range 4-92 min). Passage of the sigmoid colon was not possible in two cases with a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon. The diagnostic gain was 21 % regarding adenomatous polyps in the right colon. The complication rate was 2 % (2/100, minor) without need for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective patient cohort study shows that single-balloon colonoscopy is a safe and effective procedure to achieve a complete endoscopic examination in patients with a previous failed standard colonoscopy. A significant diagnostic and therapeutic gain in the right colon justifies additional procedure time.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Raquel E Davila; Elizabeth Rajan; Todd H Baron; Douglas G Adler; James V Egan; Douglas O Faigel; Seng-Ian Gan; William K Hirota; Jonathan A Leighton; David Lichtenstein; Waqar A Qureshi; Bo Shen; Marc J Zuckerman; Trina VanGuilder; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J C Anderson; C R Messina; W Cohn; E Gottfried; S Ingber; G Bernstein; E Coman; J Polito Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Hemant A Shah; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Therese A Stukel; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-03-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Alexander R Robertson; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Diana E Yung; Christopher Fraser; Artur Nemeth; Kenneth Trimble; Ervin Toth; John N Plevris; Gabriele Wurm Johansson Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Ana Ponte; Rolando Pinho; Adélia Rodrigues; Luísa Proença; Joana Silva; Jaime P Rodrigues; Mafalda Sousa; João Carlos Silva; João Carvalho Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-06