Warm water infusion versus air insufflation in the application of difficult colonoscopy / 中国内镜杂志

Objective To explore the effects of warm water insufflation applied in difficult colonoscopy on its success rate, insertion time, operation difficulty level and tolerance of patients. Method 200 cases of the difficult defecation of non-narcotic colonoscopy, IBS and always has a history of pelvic/abdominal surgery patients, were randomly divided into warm water infusion group (experimental group) and traditional method of air insufflation group (control group), then compare the differences of the success rate of the two groups of patients, the insertion time and degree of tolerance in patients. Results All the patients completed the investigation in this study, neither bowel perforation nor other complications occurred. Experimental group success rate of the whole colon examination, the insertion time, the operator satisfaction and check again wishes were significantly higher than that of control group (P 0.05) in Polyp detection rate. Conclusion Warm water insufflation colonoscopy can effectively improve the tolerance and accelerating the colonoscopy in patients with difficult insertion process, improve work efficiency, and is an ideal method, which is worth of promoting.

Effects of transparent cap-fitted colonoscope combined with carbon dioxide injection on the cecal intubation time and detection of colonicpolyps / 中国内镜杂志

Objective To observe and explore the effects of transparent cap-fitted colonoscope combined with carbon dioxide injection on the cecal intubation time and detection of colonic polyps during enteroscopy. Methods 216 patients underwent colonoscopy from January 2014 to June 2016 were selected and randomly divided into A, B, C groups according to random number table, 72 cases in each. Group A with transparent cap-fitted colonoscopy, group B with CO2 injection before colonoscopy, and group C combined with the above two methods and then underwent colonoscopy, cecal intubation time and colonic polyp detection rate were compared among the three groups during the inspection. Results A, B, C groups with cecal intubation ratio showed no significant differences (95.8% vs 90.3% vs 98.6%) (χ2 = 5.34, P = 0.069); the sequence of mean cecal intubation time was group Cgroup A>group B (38.9% vs 34.7% vs 23.6%) (χ2 = 4.10, P = 0.129). The sequences of visual analogue scale score after 10 min [(4.35 ± 0.62) vs (4.88 ± 0.85) vs (5.57 ± 1.05)] and 30 min [(3.04 ± 0.37) vs (3.30 ± 0.56) vs (4.41 ± 0.84)] of coloscope withdraw were both group C

Obesity and Cecal Intubation Time

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Obesity is a much-debated factor with conflicting evidence regarding its association with cecum intubation rates during colonoscopy. We aimed to identify the association between cecal intubation (CI) time and obesity by eliminating confounding factors. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of subjects undergoing outpatient colonoscopy was conducted. The population was categorized by sex and obesity (body mass index [BMI, kg/m2]: I, <24.9; II, 25 to 29.9; III, ≥30). CI time was used as a marker for a difficult colonoscopy. Mean CI times (MCT) were compared for statistical significance using analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: A total of 926 subjects were included. Overall MCT was 15.7±7.9 minutes, and it was 15.9±7.9 and 15.5±7.9 minutes for men and women, respectively. MCT among women for BMI category I, II, and III was 14.4±6.5, 15.5±8.3, and 16.2±8.1 minutes (p=0.55), whereas for men, it was 16.3±8.9, 15.9±8.0, and 15.6±7.2 minutes (p=0.95), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BMI had a positive association with CI time for women, but had a negative association with CI for men.

Efficacy of Hood-cap Assisted Colonoscopy; Comparison with Conventional Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A few studies showed that hood-cap assisted colonoscopy (CAC) had improved cecal intubation rate and cecal intubation time but did not help in finding colon polyps in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). However, other studies have shown different results. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of CAC for the cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate. METHODS: Patients for colonoscopy in Busan St. Mary's Medical Center were enrolled to this randomized controlled trial between July 2010 and September 2010. The evaluated outcomes were polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and cecal intubation time in all patients, in difficult cases (history of previous abdominal or pelvic surgery, obesity, old age), and in the expert and non-expert groups. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients enrolled in this study were randomly allocated to the CAC group (n=130), or CC group (n=130). The overall cecal intubation time was shorter in the CAC group (5.7+/-3.4 min vs. 7.8+/-5.7 min, P<0.001). The polyp detection rate was higher in the CAC group (58.4% vs. 43%, P=0.008). The cecal intubation time in the expert and non-expert groups were shorter in the CAC group (expert: 4.1+/-2.2 min vs. 5.5+/-2.0 min, P=0.001; non-expert: 6.7+/-3.7 min vs. 9.4+/-5.9 min, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAC improved the detection rate of colon polyps and shortened the cecal intubation time for both the expert and non-expert groups.

Efficacy of Transparent Cap-attached Colonoscopy: Does It Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

PURPOSE: Recently, the use of a transparent cap attached to the tip of the colonoscope has been revealed to be helpful in both detecting colorectal polyps and shortening the intubation time to the cecum. The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of transparent cap-attached colonoscopy (CAC) as compared with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of the technical ease and efficiency. METHODS: Colonoscopies from a total of 228 patients between May and October 2008 were prospectively collected. All colonoscopies were performed by single colorectal surgeon whose experience exceeded 3,000 colonoscopies. Patients were assigned to the CAC group (n=114) or to the CC group (n=114). The cecal intubation rate and time, the polyp detection rate, the adenoma detection rate, the withdrawal time, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the patient's pain were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the age, sex, body mass index, previous history of abdominal operation, diverticulosis, and the degree of bowel preparation between the two groups. The cecal intubation rate was 100% in both groups. The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the CAC group than in the CC group overall (5.3+/-4.0 min vs. 7.6+/-4.3 min, P<0.001), as well as for female (6.1+/-2.8 min vs. 9.1+/-4.7 min, P<0.001) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the total colonoscopy time (13.1+/-6.3 min vs. 14.5+/-5.2 min, P=0.066), the polyp detection rate (38.6% vs. 33.3%, P=0.408), the adenoma detection rate (28.1% vs. 25.4%, P=0.654), and the VAS scale of pain (2.48 vs. 2.74, P=0.353) between the CAC and the CC groups. CONCLUSION: The transparent cap is effective in shortening the cecal intubation time, especially in female patients.

A Comparative Study for Usefulness of a Variable-Stiffness Colonoscope to a Conventional Colonoscope / 대한소화기내시경학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Loop formation during colonoscopy can adversely effect on completion rates, speed of intubation and patient tolerance of the procedure. The ability to vary endoscope shaft flexibility may help insertion to the cecum. The aim was to compare a variable colonoscope with adjustable shaft stiffness to a conventional colonoscope (CC). METHODS: Consecutive patients attending for day case colonoscopy were randomized for examination with either the conventional colonoscope (Olympus CF200Z) or a variable stiffness (VS) colonoscope (CFQ240AL). The time to the cecum, inserted length of scope at cecum, need for abdominal compression, need for rotation of body position and pain scores of patient were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 158 cases, 69 were performed with the CC, and 89 with VS. There was no difference in intubation time between VS (mean 5.15+/-2.61 min) and CC (6.01+/-3.31 min) in experienced group. However, intubation time was quicker with VS than with CC (VS: 8.48+/-5.59, CC: 11.58+/-4.70, p=0.039) and number of loop formation was less with VS (mean 1.20) than with CC (mean 1.84) (p=0.043) in trainee group. There were no significant differences in inserted length of scope at cecum, need for abdominal compression, pain score or need for patient rotation between VS and CC in two groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in cecal intubation time between two groups in experienced group. However, in trainee group, the intubation time was quicker and the number of loop formation were lower in VS group than CC group.