Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study

Töx, Ulrich; Schumacher, Brigitte; Toermer, T.; Terheggen, Grischa; Mertens, Joachim C.; Holzapfel, Bianca; Lehmacher, Walter; Goeser, Tobias; Neuhaus, Horst

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1326270

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient-assessed abdominal pain was reported in six studies [1, 3, 11 -14]. Abdominal pain was variably recorded using Likert scales with scores in the range 0 -4 [12], 0 -10 [13,14] or 0 -100 [1,3]. Median value with interquartile range of pain scores was calculated in one study [1]; overall pain scores were significantly lower in the UTC group in this study (P < 0.001).…”

Section: Abdominal Pain Scorementioning

confidence: 79%

“…There was unclear risk of detection bias in all of these randomized studies, as blinding of outcome assessment could only be done for subjective outcomes such as abdominal pain. One RCT [14] had a high risk of selection bias owing to no reported allocation concealment, and Nemoto et al [11] had a high risk of selection bias owing to no allocation concealment and unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting bias. The only nonrandomized study scored 8/9 on the Newcastle -Ottawa score.…”

Section: Methodologic Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another study, sedating medication was administered only on demand, and was required in 2 % and 7 % of patients, in the UTC and standard colonoscope groups, respectively [12]. Propofol [14] and midazolam [13] were used in one study each. The doses of sedating medications were significantly low-▶ -0.5 0 1 0.5 ▶ Fig.…”

Section: Sedation and Analgesiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colonoscopy should reliably intubate the cecum with minimal patient discomfort and without complications. Use of thinner endoscopes to overcome pain during the procedure has shown promise. However, the use of thinner scopes could lead to excess looping and difficulty with therapeutic procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the performance of ultrathin colonoscopes (UTC) and standard colonoscopes for routine colonoscopy. We searched several electronic databases for all randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized (prospective) studies that compared the efficacies of UTC (diameter ≤ 9.8 mm) and standard colonoscopes. We used fixed effect or random effects models to compare cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, pain score, and polyp and adenoma detection rates using standard mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Seven studies (2191 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies except for pain scores. The cecal intubation rate was higher with UTC (OR 2.30; 95 %CI 1.31 to 4.03). There was no difference in the cecal intubation time between UTC and standard colonoscopes. Pain scores were significantly lower with UTC than with standard colonoscopes (SMD - 0.59, 95 %CI - 0.93 to - 0.25). Polyp and adenoma detection rates were similar for both types of colonoscope. Use of UTC appears to improve the cecal intubation rate and reduce abdominal pain but does not affect polyp detection. Future trials are needed to evaluate the therapeutic performance of UTC vs. standard colonoscopes.

show abstract

Section: Abdominal Pain Scorementioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Methodologic Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large number of patients were selected to have a colonoscopy with an ultraslim scope for patient and provider comfort. Patients reportedly prefer ultraslim colonoscopy for comfort and reduced sedation requirements, making it an ideal choice for community gastroenterologists [19-20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Experience of a Community Gastroenterology Practice with Ultraslim Colonoscopy

Essrani

Hickey

Shah

2019

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colonoscopies are performed for cancer screening as well as for other diagnostic and therapeutic reasons. It is considered successful if cecal intubation is achieved and adequate mucosa is visualized. It is not always possible to achieve cecal intubation due to multiple reasons such as sharp angulation or fixed segments of the colon and stricture. A pediatric colonoscope (PDC) and an ultrathin colonoscope (UTC) are used as a tool to negotiate sharp angulation and the fixed segments of the colon because their small diameter allows easy movement. An ultrathin colonoscope is used at many practices as a rescue in situations where standard colonoscopes have failed. Our study highlights the use of an ultraslim scope in both rescue situations and as the initial colonoscope of choice in an ambulatory endoscopy center.

show abstract

“…Хоча деякі пацієнти погоджуються на проведення діагностично-лікуваль-них втручань без медикаментозного забезпечення, використання седативних препаратів пов'язане з вищим рівнем задоволеності пацієнтів [1,2] та якос-ті проведення маніпуляцій [3]. Подолати вищеза-значені ефекти дозволили технологічні досягнення в галузі ендоскопії останніх десятиліть, що поліпшили діагностичні та терапевтичні можливості внаслідок використання більш тонких ендоскопів [11], меншої жорсткості колоноскопів [12], додаткової інсуфля-ції CO 2 [13], методів занурення у воду (під час вико-нання колоноскопії) [14], що дозволило пацієнтам перенести виконання процедур з меншим больовим та психоемоційним навантаженням. Так, протягом останніх 30 років ендоскопічна ретроградна холангі-опанкреатографія (ЕРХПГ) перетворилася у складну процедуру із залученням спеціалізованих операторів, допоміжного обладнання та анестезіологічного пер-соналу.…”

Section: вступunclassified

Особливості Анестезіологічного Забезпечення Ендоскопічних Транспапілярних Втручань

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Незважаючи на багаторічний досвід міжнародної анестезіологічної спільноти, седація та анестезія під час ендоскопічних маніпуляцій на шлунково-кишковому тракті залишається фундаментальним аспектом вивчення. У статті наведено аналіз останніх досліджень та публікацій, присвячених особливостям анестезіологічного забезпечення ендоскопічних транспапілярних втручань. Також подані власні результати аналізу проведення тотальних внутрішньовенних анестезій з інтубацією трахеї у пацієнтів, які потребували виконання ендоскопічних маніпуляцій на верхніх відділах шлунково-кишкового тракту, та проаналізовано вплив способу застосованої анестезії на результати ендоскопічних втручань, якість роботи хірургів, задоволеність пацієнтів.

show abstract

Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study

Abstract: Use of a new ultrathin colonoscope was associated with reduced propofol consumption, lower patient sedation levels, and less pain than the standard colonoscope, but ileal intubation time was longer.

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes

Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes

Initial Experience of a Community Gastroenterology Practice with Ultraslim Colonoscopy

Особливості Анестезіологічного Забезпечення Ендоскопічних Транспапілярних Втручань

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About