BACKGROUND: A history of abdominal surgery is associated with difficulty in colonoscopy insertion. Few studies have reported effective colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer. AIM: We aimed to compare the impact of supine position (SP) and left lateral position (LLP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion in patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening or post-polypectomy surveillance after gastrectomy due to stomach cancer were enrolled and randomized to the SP or LLP group as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. All colonoscopic examinations were performed with a transparent cap. The primary outcome was to compare the cecal intubation time between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were enrolled. The mean cecal intubation time was not significantly different between the SP and LLP groups (364.5 s versus 306.9 s; p = 0.105). In patients with a lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m2) or who underwent gastrectomy within three years, the mean cecal intubation time of the LLP group was shorter than the SP group. In the multivariate analysis for the factors affecting to increase in the cecal intubation time (> 5 min), the starting position was not an independent factor. CONCLUSION: Either the SP or LLP could serve as a possible starting position of colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.
BACKGROUND: A history of abdominal surgery is associated with difficulty in colonoscopy insertion. Few studies have reported effective colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer. AIM: We aimed to compare the impact of supine position (SP) and left lateral position (LLP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion in patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening or post-polypectomy surveillance after gastrectomy due to stomach cancer were enrolled and randomized to the SP or LLP group as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. All colonoscopic examinations were performed with a transparent cap. The primary outcome was to compare the cecal intubation time between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were enrolled. The mean cecal intubation time was not significantly different between the SP and LLP groups (364.5 s versus 306.9 s; p = 0.105). In patients with a lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m2) or who underwent gastrectomy within three years, the mean cecal intubation time of the LLP group was shorter than the SP group. In the multivariate analysis for the factors affecting to increase in the cecal intubation time (> 5 min), the starting position was not an independent factor. CONCLUSION: Either the SP or LLP could serve as a possible starting position of colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; Trisha V Melhado; John M Coombes; Brenda L Beaty; Kenneth Berman; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kimberly D Miller; Leticia Nogueira; Angela B Mariotto; Julia H Rowland; K Robin Yabroff; Catherine M Alfano; Ahmedin Jemal; Joan L Kramer; Rebecca L Siegel Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Charles J Kahi; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas J Robertson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Soham Gupta; Alexander P Cole; Maya Marchese; Ye Wang; Jacqueline M Speed; Sean A Fletcher; Junaid Nabi; Sebastian Berg; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Steven L Chang; Adam S Kibel; Annemarie Uhlig; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kyu-Won Jung; Young-Joo Won; Seri Hong; Hyun-Joo Kong; Jeong-Soo Im; Hong Gwan Seo Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.679