Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2017

01-12-2017

A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy

Authors: Koichiro Sato, Sayo Ito, Tomoyuki Kitagawa, Koichi Hirahata, Daisuke Hihara, Kenji Tominaga, Ichiro Yasuda, Iruru Maetani

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ultrathin colonoscopes (UTC) reportedly produce less pain during colonoscopy than standard colonoscopes. The aim of this study was to assess the tolerability of an UTC compared with that of a pediatric colonoscope.

Methods

A total of 270 adult patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were randomized, with 134 allocated to the UTC group and 136 to the pediatric colonoscope group. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale. For all procedures, sedation was administered only if requested. Overall pain, rate and time of cecal and terminal ileum intubation, number of patients requesting sedation, adenoma detection rates (ADR), and rate of complications were measured and analyzed.

Results

Among all patients, the medians of maximum pain and overall pain were significantly lower in the UTC group than in the pediatric colonoscope group (23 vs. 38, P < 0.001; 12 vs. 22, P = 0.0003, respectively). Significantly fewer patients requested sedation in the UTC group than in the pediatric colonoscope group (1.4 vs. 6.6%; P = 0.0269). No significant differences were seen in either the rate and time of successful cecal and terminal ileum intubation, or in other procedure-related outcomes, including ADR.

Conclusions

Compared with a pediatric colonoscope, the UTC was associated with reduced overall and maximum pain during colonoscopy, with no difference in ADR.
Literature
1.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, Kirk LM, Litlin S, Lieberman DA, Waye JD, Church J, Marshall JB, Riddell RH (2002) Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1296–1308CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Takahashi Y, Tanaka H, Kinjo M, Sakumoto K (2005) Prospective evaluation of factors predicting difficulty and pain during sedation-free colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1295–1300CrossRefPubMed
4.
Leung FW, Harker JO, Jackson G, Okamoto KE, Behbahani OM, Jamgotchian NJ, Aharonian HS, Guth PH, Mann SK, Leung JW (2010) A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method. Gastrointest Endosc 72:693–700CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rex DK, Goodwine BW (2002) Method of colonoscopy in 42 consecutive patients presenting after prior incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1148–1151CrossRefPubMed
6.
Saifuddin T, Trivedi M, King PD, Madsen R, Marshall JB (2000) Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults. Gastrointest Endosc 51:314–317CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kim WH, Cho YJ, Park JY, Min PK, Kang JK, Park IS (2000) Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 52:600–605CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tox U, Schumacher B, Toermer T, Terheggen G, Mertens J, Holzapfel B, Lehmacher W, Goeser T, Neuhaus H (2013) Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 45:439–444CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, Williams CB (2000) A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 46:801–805CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Farraye FA, Horton K, Hersey H, Trnka Y, Heeren T, Provenzale D (2004) Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using an upper endoscope is better tolerated by women. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1074–1080CrossRefPubMed
12.
Yoshikawa I, Honda H, Nagata K, Kanda K, Yamasaki T, Kume K, Tabaru A, Otsuki M (2002) Variable stiffness colonoscopes are associated with less pain during colonoscopy in unsedated patients. Am J Gastroenterol 97:3052–3055CrossRefPubMed
13.
Harada Y, Hirasawa D, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Ishida K, Yonechi M, Ito K, Suzuki T, Sugawara T, Horaguchi J, Takasawa O, Obana T, Oohira T, Onochi K, Kanno Y, Kuroha M, Iwai W (2009) Impact of a transparent hood on the performance of total colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 69:637–644CrossRefPubMed
14.
Garborg KK, Loberg M, Matre J, Holme O, Kalager M, Hoff G, Bretthauer M (2012) Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 44:740–746CrossRefPubMed
15.
Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK, Ng SC, Wong VW, Chan FK, Cheong JP, Lam PP, Tse YK, Lau JY (2012) A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 75:484–490CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sato K, Ito S, Shigiyama F, Kitagawa T, Hirahata K, Tominaga K, Maetani I (2012) A prospective randomized study on the benefits of a new small-caliber colonoscope. Endoscopy 44:746–753CrossRefPubMed
17.
Sato K, Shigiyama F, Ito S, Kitagawa T, Tominaga K, Suzuki T, Maetani I (2013) Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain. Surg Endosc 27:4171–4176CrossRefPubMed
18.
Marshall JB, Perez RA, Madsen RW (2002) Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 55:838–841CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kaffes AJ, Mishra A, Ding SL, Hope R, Williams SJ, Gillespie PE, Bourke MJ (2003) A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 58:685–689CrossRefPubMed
20.
Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Fujii H, Tanaka N (2004) Usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1936–1940CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, Huppertz-Hauss G, Sauar J, Paulsen J, Seip B, Moritz V (2007) Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 42:885–889CrossRefPubMed
22.
Aoun E, Abdul-Baki H, Azar C, Mourad F, Barada K, Berro Z, Tarchichi M, Sharara AI (2005) A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 62:213–218CrossRefPubMed
23.
Leung JW, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, Ransibrahmanakul K, Lim B, Cabrera H, Canete W, Barredo P, Gutierrez R, Leung FW (2009) A randomized, controlled comparison of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation versus air insufflation for aiding colonoscopy insertion in sedated patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 70:505–510CrossRefPubMed
24.
Shida T, Katsuura Y, Teramoto O, Kaiho M, Takano S, Yoshidome H, Miyazaki M (2008) Transparent hood attached to the colonoscope: does it really work for all types of colonoscopes? Surg Endosc 22:2654–2658CrossRefPubMed
25.
Liao WC, Chiu HM, Chen CC, Lee YC, Wu MS, Lin JT, Wu AS, Wang HP (2009) A prospective evaluation of the feasibility of primary screening with unsedated colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 70:724–731CrossRefPubMed
26.
Youkou A, Hasegawa T, Suzuki K, Koya T, Sakagami T, Toyabe S, Arakawa M, Gejyo F, Narita I, Suzuki E (2011) Influence of obesity on control in asthmatic Japanese patients defined by the Japanese definition of obesity. Intern Med (Tokyo, Japan) 50:1911–1916CrossRef
27.
Wang F, Shen SR, Xiao DH, Xu CX, Tang WL (2011) Sedation, analgesia, and cardiorespiratory function in colonoscopy using midazolam combined with fentanyl or propofol. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:703–708CrossRefPubMed
28.
Modlin IM, Kidd M, Latich I, Zikusoka MN, Shapiro MD (2005) Current status of gastrointestinal carcinoids. Gastroenterology 128:1717–1751CrossRefPubMed
29.
Marshall JB (1996) Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients. Gastrointest Endosc 44:675–678CrossRefPubMed
30.
Shumaker DA, Zaman A, Katon RM (2002) Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope allows completion of colonoscopy after failure with the standard adult colonoscope. Endoscopy 34:711–714CrossRefPubMed
31.
Chen PJ, Shih YL, Chu HC, Chang WK, Hsieh TY, Chao YC (2008) A prospective trial of variable stiffness colonoscopes with different tip diameters in unsedated patients. Am J Gastroenterol 103:1365–1371CrossRefPubMed
32.
Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C, Williams CB, Saunders BP (2002) Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 34:435–440CrossRefPubMed
33.
Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, Sauar J, Paulsen J, Dahler S, Kjellevold O (2005) Evaluation of a novel colonoscope designed for easier passage through flexures: a randomized study. Endoscopy 37:1123–1126CrossRefPubMed
34.
Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE, Kim HS, Choi SK, Rew JS, Kim SJ (2006) Sedation-free colonoscopy using an upper endoscope is tolerable and effective in patients with low body mass index: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2504–2510CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Zwierko M, Rupinski M, Nowacki MP, Butruk E (2010) Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 362:1795–1803CrossRefPubMed
36.
van Doorn SC, Klanderman RB, Hazewinkel Y, Fockens P, Dekker E (2015) Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training. Gastrointest Endosc 82:122–129CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy
Authors
Koichiro Sato
Sayo Ito
Tomoyuki Kitagawa
Koichi Hirahata
Daisuke Hihara
Kenji Tominaga
Ichiro Yasuda
Iruru Maetani
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5581-2

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2017 Go to the issue

Dynamic Manuscript

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors involving the appendiceal orifice

OriginalPaper

Mobile gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery in rural Ecuador: 20 years’ experience of Cinterandes

OriginalPaper

A comparison between totally laparoscopic hydrocelectomy and scrotal incision hydrocelectomy with laparoscopic high ligation for pediatric cord hydrocele

OriginalPaper

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: greatest benefit for the frail

OriginalPaper

A novel training device for tip control in colonoscopy: preliminary validation and efficacy as a training tool

OriginalPaper

Impaired laparoscopic performance of novice surgeons due to phone call distraction: a single-centre, prospective study