AIM: To compare the utility of single-balloon colonoscopy (SBC) or double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) for difficult colonoscopies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and June 2010, patients in whom total colonoscopy failed wi...AIM: To compare the utility of single-balloon colonoscopy (SBC) or double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) for difficult colonoscopies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and June 2010, patients in whom total colonoscopy failed within 30 min of insertion were assigned randomly to undergo either SBC or DBC. No sedatives were used. After the endoscopy, all patients were asked to evaluate pain during the procedure on a 10-point analog scale (1 = no pain; 10 = worst imaginable pain) with a questionnaire. The study outcomes were the cecal intubation rate and time, endoscopic findings, complications, and pain score. RESULTS: The SBC and DBC groups included 11 and 10 patients, respectively. All but one SBC patient achieved total colonoscopy successfully. The cecal intubation times were 18 min (range: 10-85 min) and 12.8 min (range: 9.5-42 min) in the SBC and DBC groups, respectively (P= 0.17). No difference was observed in the prevalence of colon polyps between the SBC and DBC groups (45% vs 30%, P = 0.66). SBC showed advanced colon cancer in the ascending colon, which was inaccessible using conventional colonoscopy. The respective pain scores were 5 (1-10) [median (range)] and 5 (1-6) in the SBC and DBC groups (P = 0.64). No complications were noted in any patient. CONCLUSION: The utility of singleand double-balloon endoscopy for colonoscopy seems comparable in patients with incomplete colonoscopy using a conventional colonoscope.展开更多
基金Supported by Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan
文摘AIM: To compare the utility of single-balloon colonoscopy (SBC) or double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) for difficult colonoscopies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and June 2010, patients in whom total colonoscopy failed within 30 min of insertion were assigned randomly to undergo either SBC or DBC. No sedatives were used. After the endoscopy, all patients were asked to evaluate pain during the procedure on a 10-point analog scale (1 = no pain; 10 = worst imaginable pain) with a questionnaire. The study outcomes were the cecal intubation rate and time, endoscopic findings, complications, and pain score. RESULTS: The SBC and DBC groups included 11 and 10 patients, respectively. All but one SBC patient achieved total colonoscopy successfully. The cecal intubation times were 18 min (range: 10-85 min) and 12.8 min (range: 9.5-42 min) in the SBC and DBC groups, respectively (P= 0.17). No difference was observed in the prevalence of colon polyps between the SBC and DBC groups (45% vs 30%, P = 0.66). SBC showed advanced colon cancer in the ascending colon, which was inaccessible using conventional colonoscopy. The respective pain scores were 5 (1-10) [median (range)] and 5 (1-6) in the SBC and DBC groups (P = 0.64). No complications were noted in any patient. CONCLUSION: The utility of singleand double-balloon endoscopy for colonoscopy seems comparable in patients with incomplete colonoscopy using a conventional colonoscope.
