Less patient discomfort by one-man colonoscopy examination

Comparison of One-Person Technique and Two-Person Technique for Colonoscope Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The one-person technique (OPT) for colonoscope insertion is recommended by professional societies and regarded as standard practice. However, the two-person technique (TPT) has shown several advantages over the OPT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the TPT compared to the OPT. Methods: In this prospective study, consecutive individuals presenting for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to undergo colonoscopy by OPT or by TPT. The colonoscopies were performed by six endoscopists, two of whom were beginners, two with intermediate skills, and two who were experts. The primary endpoints were quality indicators for colonoscopy, including adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal insertion time, and total colonoscopy time. A secondary outcome was procedure tolerability, as assessed by both the patients and the endoscopists. Results: Two hundred and four subjects (117 males, mean age 54.3) were randomized to either one- (n = 102) or two-person (n = 102) colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate was 30.4% in OPT group and 34.3% in TPT group. (p = 0.55). No significant differences between the two groups were found in terms of cecal intubation rate (98/102 vs. 98/102), insertion time (411 vs. 381 s), and total examination time (1426 vs. 1296 s). However, patients receiving the TPT had lower pain scores than patients receiving the OPT. Endoscopist fatigue measured with the FACIT-F was also significantly lower in the TPT group. Conclusion: The two-person colonoscopy method was not shown to be technically or clinically inferior. Rather, the TPT can improve patient tolerance and reduce endoscopist fatigue.

One- or two-operator techniques for oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy in unsedated patients: A comparative prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The standard oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy procedure is performed with a single endoscopist (SE). Nurse-assisted (NA) oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies have not yet been studied. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an NA endoscopy compared to an SE endoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, randomized trial, in which 500 adult patients were divided into two groups. In the first group, patients underwent an endoscopy with an SE. In the second group, the endoscopy was performed with an NA. The ease of the procedure (scores 1-4; 1 difficult, 2 satisfactory, 3 easy, 4 veryeasy), evaluation of patient satisfaction (scores 1-4; 1 uncomfortable, 2 satisfactory, 3 comfortable, 4 verycomfortable), total time of the procedure and vocal cord observation were determined as quality indicators.

RESULTS

Mean patient satisfaction scores in groups 1 and 2 were 2.98±0.79 and 3.11±0.78, respectively (p=0.043), with uncomfortable ratings in 5.2% vs 4%, satisfactory in 16.8% vs 13.2%, comfortable in 53.2% vs 50.4%, and very comfortable in 24.8% vs 32.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Retching rates during the procedure were 54.4% and 45.2% (p=0.040) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. No differences were seen in vocal cord observation (54.4% vs 56.0%), total procedure time (2.35±1.56 vs 2.41±1.48min) and easy score (3.26±0.603 vs 3.25±0.64) in groups 1 and 2 for the procedures. Very easy, easy, satisfactory, and difficult ratings were given by 33.6% vs 34.8%, 60.4% vs 56.4%, 4.8% vs 7.6% and 1.2% vs 1.2% of groups 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the conventional method, the assisted endoscopic technique provides more comfort and less gag reflex without increasing the processing time or difficulty of performing the procedure.

Changing from two- to one-operator colonoscopy insertion technique is feasible with similar quality outcomes

Background and Aim

Colonoscopy can be performed with two-operator (2OP) or one-operator (1OP) methods. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and colonoscopy quality outcomes for the two different colonoscopy insertion techniques.

Methods

One colonoscopist from Changhua Christian Hospital learned and changed the colonoscopy insertion technique from 2OP to 1OP during 2013. Real-life results of screening colonoscopies performed by this colonoscopist between these two insertion techniques (year 2012: 2OP vs year 2014: 1OP) were retrospectively reviewed and compared.

Results

In total, 219 screening colonoscopies were reviewed (2OP group, n = 103 vs 1OP group, n = 116). No differences were noted between both groups in terms of patient age, gender, weight, and height. The overall cecum intubation was 98.2%, adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 29.7%, and colonoscopy withdrawal time was 518.58 ± 972.04 s. On comparing colonoscopy quality outcomes between both methods, no differences were observed in cecal intubation rates (2OP vs 1OP: 100 vs 96.6%, P = 0.1626), ADR (28 vs 31%, P = 0.7401), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (454.88 ± 178.21 vs 576.92 ± 1325.01 s, P = 0.355). However, the 1OP group demonstrated significantly shorter colonoscopy insertion time (2OP vs 1OP: 298.28 ± 202.95 vs 216.21 ± 121.99 s, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy quality outcomes were not impaired when one endoscopist changed the colonoscopy practice pattern from 2OP to 1OP. However, 1OP significantly shortened the colonoscopy insertion time.

Technical interventions to increase adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most robust colonoscopy quality metric and clinical studies have adopted it as the ideal method to assess the impact of technical interventions. Areas covered: We reviewed papers focusing on the impact of colonoscopy technical issues on ADR, including withdrawal time and technique, second evaluation of the right colon, patient positional changes, gastrointestinal assistant participation during colonoscopy, water-aided technique, optimization of bowel preparation and antispasmodic administration. Expert commentary: Overall, technical interventions are inexpensive, available worldwide and easy to implement. Some of them, such as the adoption of split dose regimen and slow scope withdrawal to allow a careful inspection, have been demonstrated to significantly improve ADR. Emerging data support the use of water-exchange colonoscopy. According to published studies, other technical interventions seem to provide only marginal benefit to ADR. Unfortunately, the available evidence has methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes, the inclusion of expert endoscopists only and the evaluation of single technical interventions. Additionally, larger studies are needed to clarify whether these interventions might have a higher benefit on low adenoma detectors and whether the implementation of a bundle of them, instead of a single technical maneuver, might have a greater impact on ADR.

Technical skills and training of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for new beginners

The incidence of gastric cancer remains high in South Korea. Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, i.e., esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), has a higher diagnostic specificity and sensitivity than the upper GI series. Additionally, EGD has the ability to biopsy, through taking a tissue of the pathologic lesion. Successful training of EGD procedural skills require a few important things to be learned and remembered, including the posture of an examinee (e.g., left lateral decubitus and supine) and examiner (e.g., one-man standing method vs one-man sitting method), basic skills (e.g., tip deflection, push forward and pull back, and air suction and infusion), advanced skills (e.g., paradoxical movement, J-turn, and U-turn), and intubation techniques along the upper GI tract (e.g., oral cavity, pharynx, larynx including vocal cord, upper and middle and lower esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, gastric fundus, body, and antrum, duodenal bulb, and descending part of duodenum). In the current review, despite several limitations, we explained the intubation method of EGD for beginners. We hope this will be helpful to beginners who wish to learn the procedure.

One or two operator technique and quality performance of colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The two-operator technique for colonoscopy, with the endoscopy assistant actively advancing and withdrawing the scope, is still commonly practiced in Europe. As uncontrolled data has suggested that the one-operator technique is associated with a higher adenoma detection rate, we tested the hypothesis that the two-operator-technique can achieve comparable performances in terms of adenoma detection.

METHODS

Non-inferiority trial in which consecutive adult outpatients were randomised to undergo colonoscopy by one (one-operator) or by four endoscopists. Each performed half the procedures by one-operator and half by two-operator technique independently of routine clinical practice. Main outcome measure was adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

352 subjects (49% males, mean age 60 ± 12.1 years) were randomised to one (n=176) or to two-operator technique (n=176) colonoscopy. No significant differences were found in adenoma detection (33% vs. 30.7%, p=0.65), or cecal intubation rate, procedure times, and patient tolerability. No differences were found in the subgroup analysis according to routinely adopted colonoscopy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not confirm a higher adenoma detection rate for one-operator technique colonoscopy. Changing current practice to improve adenoma detection rate for endoscopists routinely using two-operator technique is not warranted.

Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The technical performance of colonoscopy performed in deeply sedated patients differs from that performed without sedation or under minimal to moderate sedation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting cecal intubation during colonoscopy performed under deep sedation.

METHODS

A total of 5352 consecutive subjects who underwent a screening colonoscopy as part of a health check-up between January 2008 and December 2008 at an academic hospital were reviewed. All endoscopies were performed with deep sedation using combination propofol or propofol alone. Data collected included characteristics of the patients (age, gender, body mass index, bowel habits, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, quality of bowel preparation, and presence/absence of colonic diverticula) and characteristics of the colonoscopists (experience level, colonoscopy procedure volume, and instrument handling method). These factors were analyzed to evaluate their impact on cecal intubation rates.

RESULTS

The crude cecal intubation rate was 98% and the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 98.3%. The mean cecal intubation time was 5.6 ± 3.2 min. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patient age greater than 60 years, constipation, poor colon preparation and a two-person colonoscopy procedure were independently associated with lower cecal intubation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy performed under deep sedation by experienced colonoscopists results in high cecal intubation rates. Among the significant patient-related predictors influencing the cecal intubation, the quality of the bowel preparation was the only modifiable factor. When performed by experienced hands, the one-person method was associated with higher cecal intubation rates than the two-person method.

Application of painless endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases

Along with the great improvement of life quality, more and more patients prefer painless endoscopy to traditional endoscopy. Most clinical researches have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of painless endoscopy under intravenous anesthesia. By painless endoscopy, doctors are able to give more precise observation of the gastrointestinal tract, make earlier diagnosis of gastric carcinoma, esophagus carcinoma or colon carcinoma. The patients could get more comfortable medical intervention. Various methods are available for intravenous anesthesia in painless endoscopy, such as propofol used alone, or propofol in combination with fentanyl, ketamine or midazolam, etc. All of the painless endoscopy methods have few side effects and can be applied according to specific clinical situations.