-
Something wrong with this record ?
Cap-assisted water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: prospective, randomized, single-center trial
P. Falt, V. Šmajstrla, P. Fojtík, M. Liberda, M. Kliment, J. Tvrdík, O. Urban,
Language English Country Australia
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
- MeSH
- Adenoma diagnosis MeSH
- Conscious Sedation methods MeSH
- Abdominal Pain diagnosis MeSH
- Equipment Design MeSH
- Colonoscopy methods MeSH
- Colonoscopes * MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pain Measurement methods MeSH
- Cecal Neoplasms diagnosis MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Immersion * MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients. METHODS: A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS: Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc14050951
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20140409123618.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 140401s2013 at f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01402.x $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)23808948
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a at
- 100 1_
- $a Falt, Přemysl
- 245 10
- $a Cap-assisted water immersion for minimal sedation colonoscopy: prospective, randomized, single-center trial / $c P. Falt, V. Šmajstrla, P. Fojtík, M. Liberda, M. Kliment, J. Tvrdík, O. Urban,
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND AIM: Water immersion insertion is able to reduce discomfort and need for sedation during colonoscopy. A cap attached to the colonoscope tip may improve insertion during air insufflation colonoscopy. According to several reports, both techniques alone may result in higher detection of neoplastic lesions. Our study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of cap-assisted water immersion compared to water immersion colonoscopy in minimally sedated patients. METHODS: A total of 208 consecutive outpatients were randomized to either cap-assisted water immersion (Cap Water) or water immersion colonoscopy (Water). The primary endpoint was cecal intubation time. RESULTS: Cecal intubation time was 6.9 ± 2.9 min in Cap Water and 7.4 ± 4.2 min in the Water arm (P = 0.73). Success rate of minimal sedation colonoscopy was equal in both groups (92.9%, P = 1.00). From the endoscopist's point of view, there were non-significant trends towards lower discomfort (P = 0.06), less need for abdominal compression (P = 0.06) and lower difficulty score (P = 0.05) during Cap Water colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was similar in both arms (44% in Cap Water vs 45% in the Water group, P = 0.88). There were no complications recorded in the present study. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with water immersion without cap, cap-assisted water immersion colonoscopy was not able to shorten the cecal intubation time. However, it has the possibility of reducing patient discomfort and difficulty of colonoscope insertion. Potential impact on improved detection of neoplastic lesions has to be evaluated by further studies.
- 650 _2
- $a bolesti břicha $x diagnóza $7 D015746
- 650 _2
- $a adenom $x diagnóza $7 D000236
- 650 _2
- $a nádory slepého střeva $x diagnóza $7 D002430
- 650 12
- $a kolonoskopy $7 D020685
- 650 _2
- $a kolonoskopie $x metody $7 D003113
- 650 _2
- $a analgosedace $x metody $7 D016292
- 650 _2
- $a design vybavení $7 D004867
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a následné studie $7 D005500
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a ponoření $7 D007101
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a měření bolesti $x metody $7 D010147
- 650 _2
- $a spokojenost pacientů $7 D017060
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
- 700 1_
- $a Šmajstrla, Vít $u -
- 700 1_
- $a Fojtík, Petr $u -
- 700 1_
- $a Liberda, Martin $u -
- 700 1_
- $a Kliment, Martin $u -
- 700 1_
- $a Tvrdík, Josef $u -
- 700 1_
- $a Urban, Ondřej $u -
- 773 0_
- $w MED00006045 $t Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society $x 1443-1661 $g Roč. 25, č. 4 (2013), s. 434-9
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23808948 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20140401 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20140409123707 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1018087 $s 849531
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2013 $b 25 $c 4 $d 434-9 $i 1443-1661 $m Digestive endoscopy $n Dig Endosc $x MED00006045
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20140401