A prospective randomized study on the benefits of a new small-caliber colonoscope

Abstract

Use of the small-caliber colonoscope reduced pain in female patients, but offered no advantage over standard colonoscopy in male patients. The performance of the small-caliber colonoscope was equivalent to that of the standard colonoscope in terms of cecal intubation rate and time to cecum, regardless of the sex of the patient.

Evaluation of discomfort during colonoscopy with conventional and ultrathin colonoscopes in ulcerative colitis patients

“…Therefore, we should emphasize that only with respect to easing of UC patient discomfort and pain, was the performance of the PCF‐PQ260 type significantly better than the PCF‐Q260A conventional colonoscope type. Our findings are supported by earlier studies, which reported less patient discomfort, but without the advantage in performance for ultrathin flexible colonoscopes over a standard colonoscope . However, to our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that has evaluated an ultrathin flexible scope for colonoscopy in UC patients.…”

“…Our findings are supported by earlier studies, which reported less patient discomfort, but without the advantage in performance for ultrathin flexible colonoscopes over a standard colonoscope. 15,18,19 However, to our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that has evaluated an ultrathin flexible scope for colonoscopy in UC patients. The main factor for the advantage of the new scope in reducing patient discomfort might be attributed to the small caliber of this design.…”

“…Recently, a new ultrathin flexible colonoscope, PCF‐PQ260 (Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) has been developed with a major focus on easing patient discomfort during colonoscopy. The PCF‐PQ260 is equipped with a passive bending section and high‐force transmission insertion tube that can pass through tortuous and narrow lesions of the colon . We undertook this investigation to evaluate the comfort and performance of this ultrathin flexible colonoscope along with a standard conventional colonoscope in a randomized controlled setting in UC patients without sedation.…”

“…The PCF-PQ260 is equipped with a passive bending section and high-force transmission insertion tube that can pass through tortuous and narrow lesions of the colon. [15][16][17][18][19][20] We undertook this investigation to evaluate the comfort and performance of this ultrathin flexible colonoscope along with a standard conventional colonoscope in a randomized controlled setting in UC patients without sedation. Accordingly, in this study, main outcome measures were patients' rating of procedural discomfort and pain related to colonoscopy by using a visual analogue scale (VAS) 21 as a primary endpoint, cecal intubation time, rate of complete intubation (to reach the cecum) and rate of procedural complications.…”

Assessment of the impact of technical factors on the quality of colonoscopy – a preliminary report

“…The debate over quality indicators of colonoscopic examination included operator-dependent elements (such as the experience of the clinician and technical competence) as well as technical elements such as diameter of the instrument (for example ultrathin endoscopes), variable stiffness, and optical resolution [18][19][20].…”