Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We evaluated the performance of a newly developed small-caliber (SC) colonoscope (PCF-PQ260L). This colonoscope (diameter 9.2 mm) is designed with passive-bending and high-force transmission. The SC colonoscope was used for rescue colonoscopy following incomplete colonoscopy with a standard (SD) colonoscope caused by sharp angulation, loop formation, or pain.

Methods

Records of SC colonoscopy given to patients following an incomplete colonoscopy with the SD colonoscope and in the same session were analyzed. Cecal intubation rate, pain using a visual analog scale (0 = none, 100 = extremely painful) in the first and second colonoscopy, total time, new lesions detected with the SC colonoscopy, dosage of sedation used, and any complications were assessed. Examinations that could not be completed, because the colonoscope was not long enough to reach the cecum due to a redundant colon were excluded.

Results

The records of 43 patients who were given SC colonoscopy following incomplete examinations using the SD colonoscope were reviewed. In 97.7 % of cases (42/43), cecal intubation was achieved with the SC colonoscope in the same session. The mean pain score during colonoscopy was significantly lower for the second SC colonoscopy than for the first SD colonoscopy (40.6 ± 14.1 vs. 74.5 ± 10.8, P < 0.001). Lesions were detected with the SC colonoscope in 41.8 % of cases (18/43).

Conclusions

When a colonoscopy with SD colonoscope failed due to sharp angulations, loop formation, or pain, subsequent colonoscopy with a SC colonoscope increased cecal intubation and lesion detection rates and decreased severity of reported pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rex DK, Goodwine BW (2002) Method of colonoscopy in 42 consecutive patients presenting after prior incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1148–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, Kirk LM, Litlin S, Lieberman DA, Waye JD, Church J, Marshall JB, Riddell RH (2002) Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1296–1308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saifuddin T, Trivedi M, King PD, Madsen R, Marshall JB (2000) Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults. Gastrointest Endosc 51:314–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Marshall JB (1996) Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients. Gastrointest Endosc 44:675–678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coppola F, Gaia S, Cosimato M, Recchia S (2011) Enteroscope without overtube for cecal intubation after an incomplete colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 43:475–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1995) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 38:964–968

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lichtenstein GR, Park PD, Long WB, Ginsberg GG, Kochman ML (1999) Use of a push enteroscope improves ability to perform total colonoscopy in previously unsuccessful attempts at colonoscopy in adult patients. Am J Gastroenterol 94:187–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK, Chen SC, Overhiser AJ (2007) Colonoscopy technique in consecutive patients referred for prior incomplete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:879–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morini S, Zullo A, Hassan C, Lorenzetti R, Campo SM (2011) Endoscopic management of failed colonoscopy in clinical practice: to change endoscopist, instrument, or both? Int J Colorectal Dis 26:103–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaffes AJ, Mishra A, Ding SL, Hope R, Williams SJ, Gillespie PE, Bourke MJ (2003) A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 58:685–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pasha SF, Harrison ME, Das A, Corrado CM, Arnell KN, Leighton JA (2007) Utility of double-balloon colonoscopy for completion of colon examination after incomplete colonoscopy with conventional colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 65:848–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedland S, Soetikno RM (2007) Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 13:5933–5937

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. May A, Nachbar L, Ell C (2006) Push-and-pull enteroscopy using a single-balloon technique for difficult colonoscopy. Endoscopy 38:395–398

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee YT, Hui AJ, Wong VW, Hung LC, Sung JJ (2006) Improved colonoscopy success rate with a distally attached mucosectomy cap. Endoscopy 38:739–742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sato K, Ito S, Shigiyama F, Kitagawa T, Hirahata K, Tominaga K, Maetani I (2012) A prospective randomized study on the benefits of a new small-caliber colonoscope. Endoscopy 44:746–753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK, Ng SC, Wong VW, Chan FK, Cheong JP, Lam PP, Tse YK, Lau JY (2012) A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 75:484–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Saito Y, Kimura H (2011) Responsive insertion technology. Dig Endosc 23(Suppl 1):164–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garborg KK, Loberg M, Matre J, Holme O, Kalager M, Hoff G, Bretthauer M (2012) Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 44:740–746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wewers ME, Lowe NK (1990) A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 13:227–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wehrmann T, Lechowicz I, Martchenko K, Riphaus A (2008) Routine colonoscopy with a standard gastroscope. A randomized comparative trial in a western population. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:443–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE, Kim HS, Choi SK, Rew JS, Kim SJ (2006) Sedation-free colonoscopy using an upper endoscope is tolerable and effective in patients with low body mass index: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2504–2510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marshall JB, Perez RA, Madsen RW (2002) Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 55:838–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Fujii H, Tanaka N (2004) Usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1936–1940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Suzuki T, Matsushima M, Tsukune Y, Fujisawa M, Yazaki T, Uchida T, Gocyo S, Okita I, Shirakura K, Sasao K, Saito T, Sakamoto I, Igarashi M, Koike J, Takagi A, Mine T (2012) Double-balloon endoscopy versus magnet-imaging enhanced colonoscopy for difficult colonoscopies, a randomized study. Endoscopy 44:38–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Farraye FA, Horton K, Hersey H, Trnka Y, Heeren T, Provenzale D (2004) Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using an upper endoscope is better tolerated by women. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1074–1080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Han Y, Uno Y, Munakata A (2000) Does flexible small-diameter colonoscope reduce insertion pain during colonoscopy? World J Gastroenterol 6:659–663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, Sauar J, Paulsen J, Dahler S, Kjellevold O (2005) Evaluation of a novel colonoscope designed for easier passage through flexures: a randomized study. Endoscopy 37:1123–1126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Okamoto M, Kawabe T, Kato J, Yamaji Y, Ikenoue T, Omata M (2005) Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 39:679–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Anderson JC, Walker G, Birk JW, Alpern Z, Von Althen I (2007) Tapered colonoscope performs better than the pediatric colonoscope in female patients: a direct comparison through tandem colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 65:1042–1047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Olympus Corporation for providing the PCF-PQ260L colonoscope.

Disclosures

Koichiro Sato, Fumiko Shigiyama, Sayo Ito, Kitagawa Tomoyuki , Kenji Tominaga, Takeshi Suzuki, and Iruru Maetani have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, 2-17-6 Ohashi, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8515, Japan

    Koichiro Sato, Fumiko Shigiyama, Sayo Ito, Tomoyuki Kitagawa, Kenji Tominaga, Takeshi Suzuki & Iruru Maetani

Authors
  1. Koichiro Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fumiko Shigiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sayo Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomoyuki Kitagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenji Tominaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takeshi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Iruru Maetani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichiro Sato.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sato, K., Shigiyama, F., Ito, S. et al. Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain. Surg Endosc 27, 4171–4176 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3016-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3016-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation