Estefanía Pérez

Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Valencia, Spain

Are you Estefanía Pérez?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)9.33 Total impact

  • Source
    PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0120444. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120444 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Various studies and two meta-analysis have shown that a variable stiffness colonoscope improves cecal intubation rate. However, there are few studies on how this colonoscope should be used.Objective: The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the advancement of the colonoscope when the variable stiffness function is activated.Methods: Prospective study enrolling consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The variable stiffness colonoscope (Olympus CF-H180DI/L®) was used. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with the success of the variable stiffness function.Results: After the data inclusion period, 260 patients were analyzed. The variable stiffness function was used most in the proximal colon segments (ascending and transverse colon 85 %; descending/sigmoid colon 15.2 %). The body mass index was lower in patients in whom the endoscope advanced after activating the variable stiffness than those in which it could not be advanced (25.9 + or -4.8 vs. 28.3 + or - 5.4 kg/m2, p = 0.009). The endoscope advanced less frequently when the stiffness function was activated in the ascending colon versus activation in other segments of the colon (25 % vs. 64.5 % ascending colon vs. other segments; p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, only the colon segment in which the variable stiffness was activated was an independent predictor of advancement of the colonoscope.Conclusions: The variable stiffness function is effective, allowing the colonoscope advancement especially when applied in the transverse colon, descending colon and sigmoid. However, when used in the ascending colon it has a lower effectiveness.
    Revista espanola de enfermedades digestivas: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Patologia Digestiva 01/2014; 106(1):15-21. DOI:10.4321/S1130-01082014000100003 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Variable stiffness colonoscope may be useful in performing colonoscopies in nonsedated patients or under endoscopist-controlled sedation. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether this instrument facilitates colonoscopy in patients under deep sedation monitored by an anaesthesiologist. Prospective and randomized study enroling consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy under deep sedation monitored by an anaesthesiologist. In group I, a variable stiffness colonoscope was used, whereas in group II, a standard colonoscope was used. The main variable was the need to change the position of the patient during the endoscopy. Fifty-six patients were included in group I (variable stiffness colonoscope) and 54 in group II (standard colonoscope). The caecum was reached in 92.9% of patients in group I and in 90.7% of group II (P=0.7). The time required to reach the caecum was significantly less in group I (6.14±3.5 vs. 7.7±3.8; P=0.035). The variable stiffness colonoscope was effective in 66.7% of cases. Changing the position of the patient was necessary in 12.5% of cases in group I compared with 33.3% of cases in group II (P=0.01). The variable stiffness colonoscope avoids the need to change the patient's position and reduces caecal intubation time in patients undergoing colonoscopy under deep sedation controlled by an anaesthesiologist.
    European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology 07/2011; 23(7):593-7. DOI:10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834793d3 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-attendance at endoscopy procedures leads to wasted resources and increased costs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors associated with non-attendance. All patients who attended the outpatient clinic for gastroscopy or colonoscopy examinations were included in the study. Patients who missed their appointment were identified and their data were collected prospectively. Patients who kept their appointment in the same period of time served as controls. Between August 2002 and February 2003, 1051 gastroscopies and 756 colonoscopies were scheduled. A total of 265 patients (14.7%) missed their appointment. No significant differences were found between attendees and non-attendees for mean age, gender, type of examination and day of the week on which the examination was scheduled. The time on the waiting list was longer in patients who did not keep their appointment than in those who did. Fewer appointments were missed in patients with a preferent referral, and among patients referred by their general practitioner a higher percentage failed to keep their appointment compared with those referred by a specialist. In the multivariate analysis, length of time on the waiting list and the source of referral were the only two independent predictive factors for non-attendance. A longer time on the waiting list and referral by a general practitioner are factors associated with patients failing to keep their endoscopy appointment.
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 02/2008; 43(2):202-6. DOI:10.1080/00365520701562056 · 2.33 Impact Factor