Colonoscopy in the sitting position: Lessons learned from self-colonoscopy by using a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope

ArticleinGastrointestinal Endoscopy 63(1):119-20 · February 2006with 677 Reads
Ad

Do you want to read the rest of this article?

Request full-text
Request Full-text Paper PDF
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing in the developed world including South Korea and China. Colonoscopy allows for greater diagnostic specificity and sensitivity compared with other types of examinations, such as the stool occult blood test, barium enema, and computed tomography colonography. Therefore, in recent years, the demand for colonoscopies has grown rapidly. New beginners including primary care physicians may help meet the increasing demand by performing colonoscopies. However, it is a challenge to learn the procedure due to the long learning-curve and the high rate of complications, such as perforation and bleeding, as compared to gastroscopy. Thus, considerable training and experience are required for optimal performance of colonoscopies. In order to perform a complete colonoscopic examination, there were a few important things to learn and remember, such as the position of examinee (e.g., left and right decubitus, supine, and prone) and examiner (two-man method vs one-man standing method vs one-man sitting method), basic skills (e.g., tip deflection , push forward and pull back, torque, air suction and insufflation), advanced skills (e.g., jiggling and shaking, right and left turn shortening, hooking, and slide-by technique), assisting skills (e.g., position change of examinee, abdominal compression, breathing-holding, and liquid-infusion technique), and intubation techniques along the lower gastrointestinal tract. In this article, we attempt to describe the methods of insertion and advancement of the colonoscope to the new beginners including primary care physician. We believe that this article may be helpful to the new beginners who wish to learn the procedure.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Background The variable-stiffness colonoscope (VSC) appears to have advantages over the standard adult colonoscope (SAC), although data are conflicting. To provide a comprehensive up-to-date review, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the VSC and SAC. Methods Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, meeting abstracts and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for further relevant studies. Results Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling a total of 2033 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant heterogeneity among these studies. The cecal intubation rate was higher with the use of VSC (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06, 8 RCTs). The VSC was also associated with fewer position changes made during colonoscopy. Time to cecal intubation was similar with VSC and SAC (WMD −0.54, 95% CI −1.40 to 0.32) but shorter in subgroup analysis with the use of VSC (WMD = −1.36, 95% CI −2.29 to −0.43). Sedation dose used with the two types of instruments showed no evidence of differences either. For all trials, only patients were blinded because of the nature of the interventions. Conclusion Use of the VSC significantly improved the cecal intubation rate and reduced ancillary maneuvers made during the procedure. Cecal intubation time was similar for the two colonoscope types over all trials, whereas a shortened time with the use of the adult VSC was seen in subgroup analysis.
  • Article
    Although variable-stiffness colonoscopes have been developed, difficult or incomplete colonoscopies occasionally occur. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope (scVSC) as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopies. First, we retrospectively reviewed the cecal intubation rate of colonoscopies in which an adult standard colonoscope (AC) was immediately switched to an scVSC in all patients in whom a colonoscopy with an AC was incomplete. Second, 374 consecutive patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy with a pediatric variable-stiffness colonoscope (PVSC, n = 123), AC (n = 125), or scVSC (n = 126). The scVSC was used by the same endoscopist to reattempt colonoscopy immediately after colonoscopy with a PVSC or an AC had been assessed as difficult or incomplete. The cecal intubation rate and time and the ancillary maneuvers used were evaluated. Fifty-two (2.5%) of the 2,056 attempted colonoscopies with an AC did not reach the cecum. Fifty-one of the 52 patients (98.1%) had complete colonoscopies after the switch from the AC to the scVSC. The initial intubation rate and time were not statistically different among the groups: PVSC, 95% and 6.8 min; AC, 91% and 7.5 min; and scVSC, 98% and 8.2 min. Cecal intubation was achieved in all five patients (100%) and in 10 out of 11 (91%) patients, respectively, after the PVSC or AC was switched to the scVSC. The completion rate markedly improved after switching from an AC or PVSC to an scVSC in difficult or incomplete colonoscopies, although the scVSC does not appear to offer any distinct advantage over the AC or PVSC for routine colonoscopies.