Newly-developed colonoscope (PCF-PQ260L) is useful for patients with difficult colons.
Journal
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology
ISSN: 2148-5607
Titre abrégé: Turk J Gastroenterol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9515841
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
entrez:
11
7
2019
pubmed:
11
7
2019
medline:
21
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preforming total colonoscopy (TCS) is sometimes difficult due to adhesions or long colons. The PCF-PQ260L (PQL) was developed to overcome TCS-related difficulties. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance and usefulness of PQL for difficult colon cases. This was a retrospective single center observational cohort study investigating differences in patient characteristics and examination performance between patients examined with PQL, versus standard (SD), scopes. Secondly, we directly compared PQL and SD scopes in patients treated with both types of scope. The PQL was used with 105 patients and SD scopes were used with 1119 patients. Patients in the PQL group were significantly shorter (157cm vs 163cm, p< 0.01) and lighter, compared to the SD group (52 kg vs 58 kg, p< 0.01). There were no significant statistical differences with regard to cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and adenoma detection. Direct comparison of use of PQL and SD scopes on the same patients revealed shorter average cecal intubation time (7 min vs 10 min, p< 0.01), and significantly increased numbers of patients reporting no pain (66 % vs 20 %, p< 0.01) and needing no sedative drugs (48% vs 25 %, p< 0.01) associated with PQL use. The examination performance of the PQL scope was similar to the SD scope. The PQL may be a good option for patients who with difficult colons.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Preforming total colonoscopy (TCS) is sometimes difficult due to adhesions or long colons. The PCF-PQ260L (PQL) was developed to overcome TCS-related difficulties. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance and usefulness of PQL for difficult colon cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective single center observational cohort study investigating differences in patient characteristics and examination performance between patients examined with PQL, versus standard (SD), scopes. Secondly, we directly compared PQL and SD scopes in patients treated with both types of scope.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The PQL was used with 105 patients and SD scopes were used with 1119 patients. Patients in the PQL group were significantly shorter (157cm vs 163cm, p< 0.01) and lighter, compared to the SD group (52 kg vs 58 kg, p< 0.01). There were no significant statistical differences with regard to cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and adenoma detection. Direct comparison of use of PQL and SD scopes on the same patients revealed shorter average cecal intubation time (7 min vs 10 min, p< 0.01), and significantly increased numbers of patients reporting no pain (66 % vs 20 %, p< 0.01) and needing no sedative drugs (48% vs 25 %, p< 0.01) associated with PQL use.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The examination performance of the PQL scope was similar to the SD scope. The PQL may be a good option for patients who with difficult colons.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31290751
doi: 10.5152/tjg.2019.18789
pmc: PMC6629285
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
630-635Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 May;49(5):560-5
pubmed: 10228252
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jul 20;343(3):162-8
pubmed: 10900274
Gut. 2001 Jun;48(6):812-5
pubmed: 11358901
Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Nov;54(5):558-62
pubmed: 11677470
N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 2;355(18):1863-72
pubmed: 17079760
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 14;355(24):2533-41
pubmed: 17167136
Gastroenterology. 2007 Jun;132(7):2297-303
pubmed: 17570204
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Nov;103(11):2700-6
pubmed: 18853968
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803
pubmed: 20463339
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jan;140(1):65-72
pubmed: 20854818
Radiology. 2011 May;259(2):393-405
pubmed: 21415247
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):687-96
pubmed: 22356322
Endoscopy. 2012 May;44(5):476-81
pubmed: 22531983
Acta Radiol. 2012 Sep 1;53(7):714-9
pubmed: 22821957
Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):20-6
pubmed: 23254403
Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):439-44
pubmed: 23468196
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 8;173(7):551-6
pubmed: 23478904
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306
pubmed: 24693890
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53
pubmed: 25480100
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov;82(5):861-9
pubmed: 25936450
Dig Endosc. 2016 Jul;28(5):526-33
pubmed: 26927367
Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):351-358
pubmed: 27852099
Dig Endosc. 2017 Mar;29(2):168-174
pubmed: 27859645
Gastroenterology. 2017 Jul;153(1):98-105
pubmed: 28428142
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;15(10):1628-1630
pubmed: 28433783
Surg Endosc. 2017 Dec;31(12):5150-5158
pubmed: 28488178
Dig Endosc. 2018 Jan;30(1):20-28
pubmed: 28885724
Dig Endosc. 2018 Jan;30(1):5-19
pubmed: 28905472
N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 30;329(27):1977-81
pubmed: 8247072
Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Jul;44(1):8-14
pubmed: 8836710