• 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,

. 2013 ; 25 (4) : 434-9.

Language English Country Australia

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...