Literature DB >> 26767313

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial.

Seth D Crockett1, Holly O Cirri2, Renuka Kelapure2, Joseph A Galanko2, Christopher F Martin2, Evan S Dellon2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes.
METHODS: We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March 2014. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups that received either ColoWrap (n = 175) or a sham device (control, n = 175) during colonoscopy. Colonoscopists and staff were blinded to the application. The primary outcome was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included use of manual pressure and position change.
RESULTS: The mean CIT was similar for the control and ColoWrap groups (6.69 vs 6.67 minutes; P = .98). There were no statistical differences in the frequency of manual pressure (45% for controls vs 37% for ColoWrap group, P = .13) or position changes (4% for controls vs 2% for ColoWrap group, P = .36). Among patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2) (n = 78), CIT was significantly lower for patients in the ColoWrap group (4.69 minutes) than controls (6.10 minutes) (P = .03). Adverse events were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, application of an external abdominal compression device did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. A possible benefit was observed in patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2), but further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02025504.
Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominal Binder; BMI; Difficult; Nursing

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26767313      PMCID: PMC4875866          DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  27 in total

1.  Still photography versus videotaping for documentation of cecal intubation: a prospective study.

Authors:  D K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity.

Authors:  Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008.

Authors:  Oralia Garcia Dominic; Thomas McGarrity; Mark Dignan; Eugene J Lengerich
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Prone positioning of obese patients for colonoscopy results in shortened cecal intubation times: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Fatema S Uddin; Ramiz Iqbal; William V Harford; Kerry B Dunbar; Byron L Cryer; Stuart J Spechler; Linda A Feagins
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Does a fitted abdominal corset makes colonoscopy more tolerable?

Authors:  Ahmet Burak Toros; Feyzullah Ersoz; Ozhan Ozcan
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 7.559

6.  Splenic injury after colonoscopy: case report and review of literature.

Authors:  Suven Shankar; Stephen Rowe
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2011

7.  Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers.

Authors:  S G Shah; B P Saunders; J C Brooker; C B Williams
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy.

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

Review 9.  Population-based prevalence estimates of history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy: review and analysis of recent trends.

Authors:  Christian Stock; Ulrike Haug; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  The incidence of upper extremity injuries in endoscopy nurses working in the United States.

Authors:  Susan A Drysdale
Journal:  Gastroenterol Nurs       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.978

View more
  4 in total

1.  Use of Patient Abdominal Compression Device Reduces Staff Musculoskeletal Pain Associated With Supporting Colonoscopy: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Seth Crockett; Evan S Dellon; Larissa Biggers; Donna A Ernst
Journal:  Gastroenterol Nurs       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr 01       Impact factor: 1.159

2.  Effect of an External Abdominal Compression Device on Polyp Detection during Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Swathi Eluri; Thomas M Runge; Holly Cirri; Christopher F Martin; Evan S Dellon; Seth D Crockett
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol Res       Date:  2018

3.  Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial.

Authors:  Osamu Toyoshima; Toshihiro Nishizawa; Kosuke Sakitani; Tadahiro Yamakawa; Shuntaro Yoshida; Kazushi Fukagawa; Keisuke Hata; Soichiro Ishihara; Hidekazu Suzuki
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 4.  Effects of Encircled Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Toshihiro Nishizawa; Hidekazu Suzuki; Hajime Higuchi; Hirotoshi Ebinuma; Osamu Toyoshima
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 4.241

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.