Topical lidocaine inhibits spasm during colonoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial (with video)

Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is the standard procedure for screening, and surveillance of colorectal cancer, including the treatment for colonic lesions. Colonic spasm is an important problem from colonoscopy that affects both surgeons and patients. The spasm also might be the cause of longer cecal intubation time, difficulty of the procedure, and increased pain. Previous reports indicated that antispasmodic agents can decrease such symptoms. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the cecal intubation time of antispasmodic agents. A single blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from 01/11/2020 to 31/08/2021. One hundred four patients were allocated to antispasmodic agent group and control group, in 1:1 ratio. The efficacy of median (range) cecal intubation time showed similar results of 5 (2, 14) and 5 (2, 15) minutes with no statistically significant difference. The mean scores of all domains i.e., pain, spasm, cleanliness, and difficulty were better in the antispasmodic agent group about 2.6 (1.4), 1.8 (0.8), 2.4 (0.9), and 2.0 (0.9), respectively, than control group but there were spasm and cleanliness showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, the satisfaction scores showed better efficacy in decreased spasm, decreased difficulty, and increased cleanliness than control group. Prescribing of antispasmodic drugs before colonoscopy might be the choice of treatment for the patients. The antispasmodic drugs will be beneficial to both of the patient and the doctor.

Intestinal topical lidocaine spray improves the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic polypectomy can prevent colorectal cancer. Adequate surgical field visualization is crucial to complete resection. To prevent visual field loss caused by intestinal peristalsis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine spraying during the endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy (ESP).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on 100 ESP patients admitted from July 2021 to October 2021, among which 50 patients received lidocaine (case group) and other 50 patients received normal saline (control group). Lidocaine or saline was sprayed on the colonic mucosa within 5 cm above and below the polyps before polypectomy. The en-bloc resection rate (EBRR) and complete resection rate (CRR) were primarily evaluated. Secondary outcomes included EBRR for polyps located in the 5-11 o'clock position, sigmoid colon peristalsis frequency, degree of exposure to the surgical field, operative times, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the basic demographic characteristics between the two groups. EBRR and CRR in the case group were 72.9% and 95.8%, and in the control group were 53.3% and 91.1%, respectively. The EBRR of sigmoid polyps located at the 5-11 o'clock positions was significantly higher in the case group (82.8%) than in the control group (56.7%) (P = 0.03). Sigmoid colonic peristalsis was significantly inhibited after lidocaine spraying (P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the operative times and adverse event rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical spraying lidocaine around polyps can safely and effectively reduce intestinal peristalsis, thus improving the EBRR of sigmoid polypectomy.

Difficult colorectal polypectomy: Technical tips and recent advances

Colonoscopy has been shown to be an effective modality to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) development. CRC reduction is achieved by detecting and removing adenomas, which are precursors of CRC. Most colorectal polyps are small and do not pose a significant challenge for trained and skilled endoscopists. However, up to 15% of polyps are considered “difficult”, potentially causing life-threatening complications. A difficult polyp is defined as any polyp that is challenging for the endoscopist to remove owing to its size, shape, or location. Advanced polypectomy techniques and skills are required to resect difficult colorectal polyps. There were various polypectomy techniques for difficult polyps such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater EMR, Tip-in EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or endoscopic full-thickness resection. The selection of the appropriate modality depends on the morphology and endoscopic diagnosis. Several technologies have been developed to aid endoscopists in performing safe and effective polypectomies, especially complex procedures such as ESD. These advances include video endoscopy system, equipment assisting in advanced polypectomy, and closure devices/techniques for complication management. Endoscopists should know how to use these devices and their availability in practice to enhance polypectomy performance. This review describes several useful strategies and tips for managing difficult colorectal polyps. We also propose the stepwise approach for difficult colorectal polyps.

Feasibility of the lidocaine injection method during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background and Aim

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often technically difficult due to intraoperative body movements. The level of sedation can be increased to suppress body movements, but this may not be successful in all cases. Using local analgesics for submucosal injection during ESD may aid in conscious sedation. This study evaluated the feasibility of the lidocaine injection method (LIM) during esophageal ESD.

Methods

Twenty‐nine patients with superficial esophageal cancer were enrolled in this study at Osaka Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital, and 1% lidocaine + 0.4% hyaluronate sodium was injected into the submucosa underneath the lesion during esophageal ESD. The main outcome was body movements that disturbed the procedure.

Results

Most patients were male (90%), with a median age of 70 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 66–75 years old), and the median lesion size was 17 mm (IQR: 12–21 mm). The median injection volume of lidocaine was 70 mg (IQR: 55–79 mg). All lesions were successfully removed en bloc. In all cases, there were no body movements that disturbed the procedure. Regarding adverse events of sedation, five patients (17%) had hypotension, four patients (14%) had bradycardia, and seven patients (24%) had hypoxemia during ESD. Convulsions or arrhythmia as adverse events associated with lidocaine were not observed.

Conclusions

Esophageal ESD with LIM did not cause body movements that disturbed the procedure. LIM may help create a stable conscious sedation method for esophageal ESD.

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Screening colonoscopy has been associated with reduced mortality from colorectal cancer by means of early detection and timely treatment. However, visualization during colonoscopy is often impaired since the colon is naturally prone to peristalsis and spasm. There is evidence to suggest benefit of topical peppermint oil in causing smooth muscle relaxation, thereby decreasing peristalsis. The aim of our study was to determine if peppermint oil helps reduce colonic spasticity so as to allow for better visualization during screening colonoscopy.

Methods

We performed a randomized controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial where patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were assigned to receive either peppermint oil or placebo. Once cecum was reached, 50 mL of either solution was directly injected via the working channel of the colonoscope. Colonic peristalsis, spasticity and bowel visibility were documented. Bowel preparation quality, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were also assessed. Continuous variables were analyzed using t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test while categorical variables were compared using the two-way Chi-square test.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included, of whom 24 patients received peppermint oil and 24 received placebo. Mean Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) was excellent for both groups (8 points vs. 7.9 points; P = 0.98). Both mean total colonoscopy time (17.8 min vs. 21.9 min; P = 0.07) and mean cecal intubation time (7.2 min vs. 10.3 min; P = 0.04) were shorter with peppermint oil as compared to placebo. Complete absence of bowel spasticity was observed among 58.3% patients in the peppermint oil group as compared to 45.8% patients in the placebo group (P = 0.05). More than 75% of bowel was visualized in 83% of patients in both groups (P = 0.56). Mean ADR was higher in the peppermint group as compared to the placebo group (45.8% vs. 37.5%; P = 0.56).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that topical peppermint oil reduces bowel wall spasticity, which could lead to better visualization of the bowel during screening colonoscopy. Although use of peppermint oil was associated with better ADRs, these results did not achieve statistical significance. Larger sample size and use of alternative methods of peppermint oil administration allowing for more absorption time may establish stronger results.

Inhibitory effect of lidocaine on colonic spasm during colonoscopy: A multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Colonic spasm can interfere with colonoscopy, but antispasmodic agents can cause complications. This study aimed to assess the inhibitory effect of topical lidocaine compared with a placebo control.

METHODS

In five tertiary-care hospitals in Japan, 128 patients requiring endoscopic resection of a colorectal lesion were enrolled and randomly and double-blindly allocated to colonoscopy with topical administration of 2% lidocaine solution 20mL (LID, n = 64) or normal saline 20mL (control, n = 64). During colonoscopy, the assigned solution was applied with a spray catheter near the lesion and the area was observed for three minutes. primary endpoint was the inhibitory effect at three time-points (1, 2 and 3 minutes after dispersion), using a three-point scale (excellent, fair, poor). Secondary endpoints were rebound spasm and adverse events. All endpoints were scored in real time. Serum lidocaine levels were measured in 32 patients (LID 16, control 16).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups in patient demographics. At all time-points, the proportion of patients with "excellent" scores was greater in LID group than control group, with significant differences observed at 2 minutes (p = 0.02) and 3 minutes (p = 0.02). In LID group, the rate of "excellent" scores increased by 12.5% at 2 minutes and was maintained at 3 minutes. Rebound spasm did not occur in LID group, compared with 15.6% of control group (p = 0.001). There were no adverse events in LID group. All serum lidocaine levels were below detectable levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical lidocaine is an effective and safe method for suppressing colorectal spasm during colonoscopy (UMIN000024733).