Transparent-cap-fitted colonoscopy shows higher performance with cecal intubation time in difficult cases

AIM:To investigate the efficacy of cap-fitted colonoscopy(CFC) with regard to cecal intubation time.METHODS:Two hundred and ninety-five patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at Gospel Hospital,Kosin University College of Medicine were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial between January and December 2010.Colonoscopies were conducted by a single endoscopist.Patient characteristics including age,sex,body mass index,history of abdominal surgery,quality of preparation,and the presence of diverticulosis were recorded.RESULTS:One hundred and fifty patients were allocated into a CFC group and 145 into a non-CFC(NCF) group.Cecal intubations were achieved in all patients.Cecal intubation time in the CFC group was significantly shorter than in the NCF group for specific conditions:age ≥ 60 years,prior abdominal surgery,and poor bowel preparation.The number of detected adenomas was higher in the CFC group than in the NCF group(P = 0.040).CONCLUSION:CFC facilitated shortening of the cecal intubation time in difficult cases,and was more sensitive for detecting adenomas than was NCF.

“Passive-bending colonoscope”significantly improves cecal intubation in difficult cases

Colonoscopy sometimes causes pain during insertion,especially in difficult cases.Over-insufflation of air causes elongation or acute angulations of the colon,making passage of the scope difficult and causing pain.We previously reported a sedative-risk-free colonoscopy insertion technique,namely,"Water Navigation Colonoscopy".Complete air suction after water infusion not only improves the vision,but also makes water flow down to the descending colon,while the sigmoid colon collapses and shortens.While non-sedative colonoscopy can be carried out without pain in most cases,some patients do complain of pain.Most of these patients have abnormal colon morphology,and the pain is caused while negotiating the "hairpin" bends of the colon.The "hairpin" bends of the colon should be negotiated by gently pushing the full-angled colonoscope.The proximal 10-20 cm from the angulated part of the conventional colonoscope is stiff,with a wide turning radius,therefore,a conventional colonoscope cannot be negotiated through the "hairpin" bends of the colon without stretching them and causing pain.The "passive-bending colonoscope" has a flexible tip with a narrow turning radius,so that the scope can be negotiated through the "hairpin" bends of the colon with a minimum turning radius and minimal discomfort.Therefore,the intubation and pain-reducing performance of the "passive-bending colonoscope" was assessed in difficult cases.

Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy

AIM: To study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate. METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study. RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no signif icant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no signif icant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 ± 7.05 min vs 10.34 ± 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 ± 13.95 min vs 22.56 ± 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists. CONCLUSION: CAC did not signif icantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

Does deep sedation with propofol affect adenoma detection rates in average risk screening colonoscopy exams?

To determine the effect of sedation with propofol on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal intubation rates (CIR) in average risk screening colonoscopies compared to moderate sedation. METHODSWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 2604 first-time average risk screening colonoscopies performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2010-2013. ADR and CIR were calculated in each sedation group. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders of age and body mass index (BMI). RESULTSOne-third of the exams were done with propofol (n = 874). Overall ADR in the propofol group was significantly higher than moderate sedation (46.3% vs 41.2%, P = 0.01). After adjustment for age and BMI differences, ADR was similar between the groups. CIR was 99% for all exams. The mean cecal insertion time was shorter among propofol patients (6.9 min vs 8.2 min; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONDeep sedation with propofol for screening colonoscopy did not significantly improve ADR or CIR in our population of average risk patients. While propofol may allow for safer sedation in certain patients (e.g., with sleep apnea), the overall effect on colonoscopy quality metrics is not significant. Given its increased cost, propofol should be used judiciously and without the implicit expectation of a higher quality screening exam.