Résumé
The use of an upper endoscope has been considered as a back-up method in case of incomplete caecal intubation. We compared caecal intubation rates between colonoscopic examinations done with a standard colonosope and those in which a standard gastroscope was used, to determine if routine colonosocpies could be performed with gastrocope if no colonoscope is available. A prospective comparative study, analyzing continuous date was designed to evaluate the usefulness of a standard gastroscope in a group of outpatients with indication for colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. At total of 170 adult patients were randomly assigned to two similar study groups. All examinations were performed by a single endoscopist. Our primary end point was to achieve caecal intubation. Successful caecal intubation was achieved in 162 patients that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. 83 patients in the colonoscope and 79 in the gastroscope group. Failure of caecal intubation was similar in male and female patients in both groups [p- 0.34]. Caecal intubation failure rates were similar in both study groups. We used the gastroscope as a first line method or routine colonosocpies and found no statistical difference between the colonoscope and gastroscope groups. If these results can be verified in larger mulicenter studies, it may be possible in the future, to work with only one endoscope for both upper and lower digestive tract examinations in small centers, particularly in developing countries