BackgroundHigh-quality bowel preparation is necessary for colonoscopy. A few studies have been conducted to investigate improvement in bowel preparation quality through patient education. However, the effect of patient education on bowel preparation has not been well studied.MethodsA randomized and prospective study was conducted. All patients received regular instruction for bowel preparation during a pre-colonoscopy visit. Those scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to view an educational video instruction (video group) on the day before the colonoscopy, or to a non-video (control) group. Qualities of bowel preparation using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality scale (Ottawa score) were compared between the video and non-video groups. In addition, factors associated with poor bowel preparation were investigated.ResultA total of 502 patients were randomized, 250 to the video group and 252 to the non-video group. The video group exhibited better bowel preparation (mean Ottawa total score: 3.03 ± 1.9) than the non-video group (4.21 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) and had good bowel preparation for colonoscopy (total Ottawa score <6: 91.6 % vs. 78.5 %; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that males (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, P = 0.029), diabetes mellitus patients (OR = 2.79, P = 0.021), and non-use of visual aids (OR = 3.09, P < 0.001) were associated with poor bowel preparation. In the comparison of the colonoscopic outcomes between groups, the polyp detection rate was not significantly different between video group and non-video group (48/250, 19.2 % vs. 48/252, 19.0 %; P = 0.963), but insertion time was significantly short in video group (5.5 ± 3.2 min) than non-video group (6.1 ± 3.7 min; P = 0.043).ConclusionThe addition of an educational video could improve the quality of bowel preparation in comparison with standard preparation method.Trial registrationClinical Research Information Service KCT0001836. The date of registration: March, 08th, 2016, Retrospectively registered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-016-0476-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: Successful biliary cannulation is a prerequisite and important component of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but conventional cannulation methods (CCMs) have a postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 14.1% in patients at high risk for PEP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF), compared with a CCM, when used for primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP. METHODS: A total of 207 patients with one or more risk factors for PEP were prospectively enrolled. The patients were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups according to the primary biliary cannulation technique (NKF or CCM). We compared biliary cannulation success rates, cannulation and procedure times, and the incidence of adverse events, including PEP, between the groups. RESULTS: The mean number of PEP risk factors was similar between the groups (NKF, 2.2 ± 1.0; CCM, 2.2 ± 0.9). PEP occurred in 8 patients in the CCM group and in no patients in the NKF group (9.2% vs 0%, P < 0.001). The rates of other adverse events did not differ between the groups. The biliary cannulation success rate was high in the NKF group, but relatively low in the CCM group, possibly because of the stringent failure criteria aimed at reducing PEP. However, the mean cannulation and total procedural times were longer in the NKF group than in the CCM group. DISCUSSION: NKF is an effective and safe procedure to gain primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02916199.

CH-EUS is useful for distinguishing between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and other pancreatic disease. When a pancreatic mass shows a hypoenhanced pattern on CH-EUS but involves either insufficient samples or negative results with EUS-FNA, clinicians might consider performing another pathologic diagnosis on the basis of an EUS-FNA sample or a biopsy.