Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 18 February 2018

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Impact of bending section length on colonoscopy insertion

Short bending sections facilitate proximal colon retroflexion for pediatric and adult colonoscopies, however, it can negatively impact cecal insertion and terminal ileal intubation in pediatric colonoscopies, reports the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

Colonoscopes with short bending sections facilitate retroflexion but their effect on other aspects of colonoscope insertion are unknown.

Dr William Kessler and Dr Douglas Rex determined the impact of short bending on cecal insertion, terminal ileal intubation, and proximal colon retroflexion.

Deeper ileal intubation occurred with the normal bending in 2 directions versus short bending in 4 directions
American Journal of Gastroenterology

The researchers performed 2 studies.

In Study 1, the research team randomized 104 adult patients with intact colons to 3 different interventions including colonoscopy with a standard pediatric colonoscope.

Patients in Study 1 were randomized to a prototype pediatric colonoscope with short bending in 4 directions (Group 1), or short bending in 2 directions (Group 2), and normal bending in 2 directions (Group 3).

In Study 2, the team randomized 70 patients with intact colons to undergo colonoscopy with a prototype 170° wide angle colonoscope.

The randomization in Study 2 occurred either to a standard bending section length or to a prototype 170° colonoscope with a short bending section.

The researchers reported that in Study 1, the cecum was reached in all patients.

Short bending in 4 directions had a longer cecal intubation when compared to the standard pediatric colonoscope and the normal bending in 2 directions.

The researchers found that short bending in 4 directions required the application of abdominal pressure and activation of the variable stiffness device.

The team noted that activation of the variable stiffness device was less frequent with both the standard pediatric colonoscope and normal bending in 2 directions.

Successful cecal retroflexion was less possible with standard pediatric colonoscope compared to short bending in 4 directions or normal bending in 2 directions.

The researchers observed that the ability to intubate the terminal ileum was similar in Groups 1 to 3 as was the time needed to intubate.

The research team noted that depth of intubation was deeper for standard pediatric colonoscope compared to short bending in 4 directions or normal bending in 2 directions.

The team observed a trend toward deeper ileal intubation with the normal bending in 2 directions compared to the short bending in 4 directions.

In Study 2, the researchers found no difference in cecal intubation time or in frequency of application of abdominal pressure or position change.

In addition, the research team noted no difference in activation of the stiffening device in Study 2.

Cecal retroflexion was successful more often when using the colonoscope with a short bending section compared to a wide angle colonoscope.

Dr Kessler and colleague concluded, “Short bending sections facilitate proximal colon retroflexion for both pediatric and adult colonoscopies.”

“However, it can negatively impact cecal insertion and terminal ileal intubation in pediatric colonoscopes.”

“A pediatric colonoscope with short bending in only two directions had good function for both cecal insertion and proximal colon retroflexion.”

Am J Gastroenterol 2005: 100(6): 1290
09 June 2005

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 16 February 2018 
Undetected celiac in the elderly
 16 February 2018 
Inflammatory bowel diseases are global diseases
 16 February 2018 
Fructans induce non-celiac gluten sensitivity
 15 February 2018 
Oral direct-acting antiviral treatment for Hep C virus genotype 1
 15 February 2018 
NSAIDS and GI damage
 15 February 2018 
Primary vs secondary surgery for the presence of lymph node metastasis
 14 February 2018 
Management of hemorrhoids in the USA
 14 February 2018 
Predicting adenoma detection rate
 14 February 2018 
Normal bowel frequency characterization in the USA 
 13 February 2018 
Prebiotics improve endothelial dysfunction
 13 February 2018 
Personalising treatment options for IBS
 13 February 2018 
Diagnostic criteria for a Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorders
 12 February 2018 
Visceral hypersensitivity and functional GI disorders
 12 February 2018 
Depression and aggressive IBD
 12 February 2018 
Variability in interpretation of endoscopic findings impacts patient management
 09 February 2018 
Treatment of choice for anastomotic stricture in IBD
 09 February 2018 
PRO measurement information system 
 09 February 2018 
Overall disease severity indices for IBD
 08 February 2018 
Prediction of endoscopically active disease

 08 February 2018 
Steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis
 08 February 2018 
Decision aid used by IBD patients
 07 February 2018 
Ursodeoxycholic acid combined with bezafibrate for itching
 07 February 2018 
Change in microbiome in gastritis vs gastric carcinoma
 07 February 2018 
Colorectal cancer and primary sclerosing cholangitis-IBD
 06 February 2018 
Risk of death after liver transplantation
 06 February 2018 
Crohn’s disease vs refractory pouchitis
 06 February 2018 
Support for functional dyspepsia symptom diary
 05 February 2018 
Helicobacter spp influence on GI tract 
 05 February 2018 
No link found between severe reflux and all-cause mortality 
 05 February 2018 
Psychological distress in PPI non-responders
 02 February 2018 
Assessing psychosexual impact of IBD
 02 February 2018 
Decrease in overall mortality with cholera vaccination
 02 February 2018 
Diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical tests
 01 February 2018 
Screening frequency with family histories of colorectal cancer
 01 February 2018 
IBD and sport participation
 01 February 2018 
Life with a stoma 
 31 January 2018 
Aprepitant and gastroparesis 
 31 January 2018 
Anesthesia risk in colonoscopy
 31 January 2018 
GED-0301 for Crohn's Disease
 30 January 2018 
Intestinal dysbiosis and allergic diseases in infants
 30 January 2018 
Fructans and IBS symptoms in children
 29 January 2018 
Dosing calculator for therapy optimization in IBD
 29 January 2018 
Glecaprevir–pibrentasvir for in HCV
 29 January 2018 
Food allergen injections in eosinophilic esophagitis
 29 January 2018 
Reliability of the IBD index
 26 January 2018 
Tofacitinib vs biological therapies for ulcerative colitis
 26 January 2018 
Optimizing selection of biologics in IBD
 26 January 2018 
Nutritional risk and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy outcomes
 25 January 2018 
Patient-reported outcome measure for functional dyspepsia
 25 January 2018 
Predicting intra-abdominal infections after colorectal surgery
 25 January 2018 
Predictors of gastric cancer risk
 24 January 2018 
Risk factors underlying previously undiagnosed cirrhosis
 24 January 2018 
Ethnicity influences phenotype in IBD
 24 January 2018 
Bariatric surgery vs medical obesity treatment
 23 January 2018 
Atrophic gastritis after H. pylori eradication
 23 January 2018 
Ectopic pregnancy in women with IBD
 23 January 2018 
Celiac disease in IBS in the USA
 22 January 2018 
Improving symptoms in GERD
 22 January 2018 
Costs of biologic therapies for IBD in the USA
 22 January 2018 
Western vs Asian guidelines for colon cancer management

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2018 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us