Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technical Advances in Getting to the Cecum

  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Clinical demand for colonoscopy has increased with the introduction of colorectal cancer screening worldwide. The goal is a complete, comfortable, and high-quality procedure. Up to one third of colonoscopies are challenging, and incomplete colonoscopy occurs in 10% of cases. High cecal intubation rates can be achieved by minimizing air insufflation and looping, and by using ancillary maneuvers such as position change and abdominal pressure. In difficult cases, changing to a non-standard endoscope, the use of magnetic endoscopic imaging, and endoscopic accessories including a transparent cap or an overtube can be an effective measure. The use of carbon dioxide instead of air insufflation reduces post-procedure discomfort. A new technique involving water immersion in lieu of air insufflation may reduce discomfort and facilitate insertion to the cecum. Data from alternative novel colonoscopy platforms including capsule colonoscopy, Neoguide, Invendoscope, and the Aer-O-scope appear promising, and prospective clinical studies are warranted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of importance•• Of major importance

  1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al.: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al.: Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–1308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rathgaber SW, Wick TM: Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:556–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D, et al.: Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:352–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al.: Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2297–2303. This large population-based study shows that female gender, increased patient age, and having a colonoscopy in a private office instead of an academic hospital are associated with increased risk of an incomplete procedure.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al.: A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut. 2004;53:277–283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrini JL, Egan JV, Hahn WV: Unsedated colonoscopy: patient characteristics and satisfaction in a community-based endoscopy unit. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:567–572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson JC, Messina CR, Cohn W, et al.: Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:558–562.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oh SY, Sohn CI, Sung IK, et al.: Factors affecting the technical difficulty of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:1403–1406.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Streett SE: Endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in women: can we do better? Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:1047–1049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR, et al.: Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2784–2787.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saunders BP, Masaki T, Sawada T, et al.: A peroperative comparison of Western and Oriental colonic anatomy and mesenteric attachments. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1995;10:216–221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soweid AM, Kobeissy AA, Jamali FR, et al.: A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy. 2010;42:633–638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hsieh YH, Tseng KC, Lin HJ: Limited low-air insufflation is optimal for colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:2035–2042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shah SG, Saunders BP, Brooker JC, et al.: Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:1–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al.: Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:885–889.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah SG, Brooker JC, Williams CB, et al.: Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on colonoscopy performance: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1718–1722.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shah SG, Thomas-Gibson S, Lockett M, et al.: Effect of real-time magnetic endoscope imaging on the teaching and acquisition of colonoscopy skills: results from a single trainee. Endoscopy. 2003;35:421–425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Striegel J, Jakobs R, Van DJ, et al.: Determining scope position during colonoscopy without use of ionizing radiation or magnetic imaging: the enhanced mapping ability of the NeoGuide Endoscopy System. Surg Endosc. 2010.

  20. East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N, et al.: Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:263–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saunders BP, Williams CB: Premedication with intravenous antispasmodic speeds colonoscope insertion. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:209–211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamano HO, Yoshikawa K, Kimura T, et al.: Carbon dioxide insufflation for colonoscopy: evaluation of gas volume, abdominal pain, examination time and transcutaneous partial CO(2) pressure. J Gastroenterol. 2010.

  23. • Dellon ES, Hawk JS, Grimm IS, et al.: The use of carbon dioxide for insufflation during GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:843–849. This systematic review consisting of randomized controlled trials shows that CO 2 insufflation is safe and effective during colonoscopy, and is associated with less post-procedural pain, flatus, and colonic distention.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Luo D, Lau J, Hui A, et al.: A randomised comparison of an ultra-thin and standard colonoscopes oin achieving cecal intubation. Gastroenterology 2010:W1042.

  26. Pasha SF, Harrison ME, Das A, et al.: Utility of double-balloon colonoscopy for completion of colon examination after incomplete colonoscopy with conventional colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:848–853.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee DW, Li AC, Ko CW, et al.: Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison of 3 colonoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:424–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, et al.: A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2000;46:801–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rex DK: Effect of variable stiffness colonoscopes on cecal intubation times for routine colonoscopy by an experienced examiner in sedated patients. Endoscopy. 2001;33:60–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Othman MO, Bradley AG, Choudhary A, et al.: Variable stiffness colonoscope versus regular adult colonoscope: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy. 2009;41:17–24. This is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting that variable stiffness colonoscope showed similar cecal intubation times as standard adult colonoscope, but was associated with a higher cecal intubation rate, less abdominal pain, and reduced need for sedation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kondo S, Yamaji Y, Watabe H, et al.: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the usefulness of a transparent hood attached to the tip of the colonoscope. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:75–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee YT, Lai LH, Hui AJ, et al.: Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with regular colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:41–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Harada Y, Hirasawa D, Fujita N, et al.: Impact of a transparent hood on the performance of total colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:637–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kato N, et al.: Hood-assisted colonoscopy is more effective in detection of colorectal adenomas than narrow-band imaging. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:379–383. This article shows that colonoscopy with a transparent retractable extension improves adenoma detection rate, in particularly sessile and small adenomas, compared with repeat colonoscopy using narrow-band imaging.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K, et al.: Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy. 1998;30:444–447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tee HP, Corte C, Al-Ghamdi H, et al.: Prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating cap-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:3905–3910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hewett DG, Rex DK: Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010.

  38. Leung FW: Water-related techniques for performance of colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2008;53:2847–2850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Leung FW, Aharonian HS, Leung JW, et al.: Impact of a novel water method on scheduled unsedated colonoscopy in U.S. veterans. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:546–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Leung JW, Mann S, Leung FW: Options for screening colonoscopy without sedation: a pilot study in United States veterans. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:627–631.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Leung FW, Harker JO, Jackson G, et al.: A proof-of-principle, prospective, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating improved outcomes in scheduled unsedated colonoscopy by the water method. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010.

  42. • Leung CW, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R, et al.: Water immersion versus standard colonoscopy insertion technique: randomized trial shows promise for minimal sedation. Endoscopy. 2010;42:557–563. This prospective study compared the success of colonoscopy with minimal sedation using water immersion and conventional air insufflation. Water immersion technique was associated with reduced cecal intubation time, decreased patient discomfort, and the amount of sedative and analgesic used.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Leung J, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, et al.: A RCT of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation (water method) vs. air insufflation (air method) for screening and surveillance colonoscopy with on-demand sedation. 2010:S1382.

  44. •• Leung JW, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, et al.: A randomized, controlled comparison of warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation versus air insufflation for aiding colonoscopy insertion in sedated patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:505–510. This randomized controlled trial showed that warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation led to reduced medication increments, lower pain score, and decreased recovery time in minimally sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Park SC, Keum B, Kim ES, et al.: Usefulness of Warm Water and Oil Assistance in Colonoscopy by Trainees. Dig Dis Sci. 2010.

  46. Eickhoff A, Van DJ, Jakobs R, et al.: Computer-assisted colonoscopy (the NeoGuide Endoscopy System): results of the first human clinical trial (“PACE study”). Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:261–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Eickhoff A, Jakobs R, Kamal A, et al.: In vitro evaluation of forces exerted by a new computer-assisted colonoscope (the NeoGuide Endoscopy System) 2. Endoscopy. 2006;38:1224–1229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Vucelic B, Rex D, Pulanic R, et al.: The aer-o-scope: proof of concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:672–677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Arber N, Grinshpon R, Pfeffer J, et al.: Proof-of-concept study of the Aer-O-Scope omnidirectional colonoscopic viewing system in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models. Endoscopy. 2007;39:412–417.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eliakim R, Fireman Z, Gralnek IM, et al.: Evaluation of the PillCam Colon capsule in the detection of colonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Endoscopy. 2006;38:963–970.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y, et al.: Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1026–1031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rex DK, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ: Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2000–2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S, et al.: Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women? Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:124–126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Harewood GC, Chrysostomou K, Himy N, et al.: Impact of operator fatigue on endoscopy performance: implications for procedure scheduling. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:1656–1661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee YT, Hui AJ, Wong VW, et al.: Improved colonoscopy success rate with a distally attached mucosectomy cap. Endoscopy. 2006;38:739–742.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong

    Siew C. Ng

  2. Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong

    James Y. W. Lau

Authors
  1. Siew C. Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Y. W. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Y. W. Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, S.C., Lau, J.Y.W. Technical Advances in Getting to the Cecum. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 7, 16–23 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-010-0074-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-010-0074-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation