Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison of 3 colonoscopes.

BACKGROUND: The variable-stiffness colonoscope incorporates different degrees of stiffness of the insertion tube, which can be adjusted during the examination. Whether its use can lead to reduced procedure-related pain and sedative use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the use of 3 types of colonoscope with different shaft stiffnesses in relation to procedure-related pain and sedative consumption. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Endoscopy unit of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment was made of patients into 3 groups to receive colonoscopic examinations by one of the 3 types of colonoscope: conventional standard adult size, 1.3-m; 1.6-m; and the new variable-stiffness adult size, full-length (1.6-m) colonoscope. A mixture of propofol and afentanil, delivered by a patient-controlled syringe pump, was used for sedation in all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included dose of patient-controlled sedation consumed, pain score, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, requirement of abdominal pressure and change of patients' positions during colonoscopy, and endoscopists and patients' satisfaction scores according to a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were randomized. Patients in group 3 used significantly less propofol (in milligrams per kilograms, mean [SD]) compared with the other 2 groups (group 1: 1.00 [0.75], group 2: 0.93 [0.62], and group 3: 0.75 [0.65]; P = .02; 1-way analysis of variance). The mean (SD) pain score was also lower in group 3. LIMITATIONS: The endoscopists were not blinded. CONCLUSION: The use of the new variable-stiffness adult-size colonoscope significantly reduced procedure-related pain and doses of sedative medications during colonoscopy.

Premedication with intravenous ketorolac trometamol (Toradol) in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial to investigate the effect of ketorolac trometamol (KT) administered intravenously as premedication in colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred and forty patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 60 mg of KT (KT group (KTG), n=70) or placebo (normal saline group (NSG), n=70) intravenously as premedication 30 min prior to procedure. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) was used as the mode of sedation. Outcome measures included patient self-assessed pain score in a 10-cm unscaled visual analog scale (VAS), endoscopist assessment of patient pain score in VAS, patient's willingness to repeat colonoscopy, administered and demanded doses of PCS, patient satisfaction score in VAS, and hemodynamic changes during and after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean patient self-assessed pain score (SD) during procedure was significantly lower in KTG than NSG: 5.08 (2.74) vs 6.62 (2.45); p=0.001. The mean endoscopist assessment of patient pain score (SD) was significantly lower in KTG than NSG as well: 3.99 (2.80) vs 5.28 (2.71); p=0.006. More patients in KTG were willing to repeat procedure as compared with NSG (80.0%vs 57.1%; p=0.004). No significant difference was found in the administered and demanded doses of PCS, mean satisfactory scores and hemodynamic changes in both groups. No serious complication related to intravenous (IV) KT was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with IV KT (Toradol) improves pain control during colonoscopy with no associated serious complications.

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities. RESULTS: Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair.