Keijiro Sunada1, Satoshi Shinozaki1,2, Tomonori Yano1, Yoshikazu Hayashi1, Hirotsugu Sakamoto1, Alan Kawarai Lefor3, Hironori Yamamoto4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan. 2. Shinozaki Medical Clinic, Tochigi, Japan. 3. Department of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan. ireef@jichi.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Cecal intubation using conventional colonoscopy (CC) requires substantial training. We hypothesized that double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) facilitates cecal intubation by endoscopy naïve operators. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cecal intubation rate and learning curve of DBC compared with CC. METHODS:Eighteen endoscopy naïve medical students were allocated to two groups and attempted cecal intubation within 20 min using a colon simulator. In group A, CC was performed ten times and then DBC ten times. In group B, the reverse was carried out. We evaluated the cecal intubation rate and learning curve. RESULTS: The overall success rate for cecal intubation using DBC was significantly superior to CC [132/180 (73%) vs. 12/180 (7%), p < 0.001]. To evaluate the success rate overtime, we divided the ten repetitions of the procedure into three time periods: first (1-3), second (4-6), and third (7-10). The success rate using CC is <20%, even during the third time period, in both groups, and one perforation occurred. The success rate using DBC is over 30% in the first period and increased to nearly 80% in the third period in both groups. Finally, we evaluated the time needed for cecal intubation using DBC. The mean cecal intubation time in the first period is 14 min and decreased to 11 min in the third period. CONCLUSIONS:DBC has a higher cecal intubation rate than CC performed by endoscopy naïve medical students using a colon simulator in this randomized-controlled, cross-over study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/AIM: Cecal intubation using conventional colonoscopy (CC) requires substantial training. We hypothesized that double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) facilitates cecal intubation by endoscopy naïve operators. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cecal intubation rate and learning curve of DBC compared with CC. METHODS: Eighteen endoscopy naïve medical students were allocated to two groups and attempted cecal intubation within 20 min using a colon simulator. In group A, CC was performed ten times and then DBC ten times. In group B, the reverse was carried out. We evaluated the cecal intubation rate and learning curve. RESULTS: The overall success rate for cecal intubation using DBC was significantly superior to CC [132/180 (73%) vs. 12/180 (7%), p < 0.001]. To evaluate the success rate overtime, we divided the ten repetitions of the procedure into three time periods: first (1-3), second (4-6), and third (7-10). The success rate using CC is <20%, even during the third time period, in both groups, and one perforation occurred. The success rate using DBC is over 30% in the first period and increased to nearly 80% in the third period in both groups. Finally, we evaluated the time needed for cecal intubation using DBC. The mean cecal intubation time in the first period is 14 min and decreased to 11 min in the third period. CONCLUSIONS:DBC has a higher cecal intubation rate than CC performed by endoscopy naïve medical students using a colon simulator in this randomized-controlled, cross-over study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Double-balloon enteroscopy; Endoscopy; Training technics
Authors: Annaliese M Plooy; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Alanna St G Cresp; Marcus O Watson; Soong-Yuan Ooi; Stephan Riek; Guy M Wallis; Robin Burgess-Limerick; David G Hewett Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ivana Dzeletovic; M Edwyn Harrison; Shabana F Pasha; Michael D Crowell; G Anton Decker; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Jonathan A Leighton Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: H Yamamoto; Y Sekine; Y Sato; T Higashizawa; T Miyata; S Iino; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thad Wilkins; Bruce LeClair; Mark Smolkin; Kathy Davies; Andria Thomas; Marcia L Taylor; Scott Strayer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Bret J Spier; Mark Benson; Patrick R Pfau; Gregory Nelligan; Michael R Lucey; Eric A Gaumnitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 9.427