Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Limited Low-Air Insufflation Is Optimal for Colonoscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Air insufflation is essential in routine colonoscopy, but obtaining optimal insufflation levels has not been discussed in the literature. The aim of this study was to determine optimal air insufflation during colonoscopic examination.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized to receive high-air insufflation (group A, n = 83), low-air insufflation (group B, n = 84), or low-air insufflation limited to the rectum and sigmoid colon (group C, n = 83). Completion rate, cecal intubation time, propofol dose, need for abdominal compression, and turning of patients, were evaluated. The post-procedure abdominal bloating was assessed with a 0–10 visual analog scale.

Results

The completion rates were similar among the three groups. The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in group C than in group B (4.1 ± 1.7 min vs. 5.2 ± 3.0 min, mean ± SD, p = 0.005). The dose of propofol was significantly less in group C than in group A (11.7 ± 3.2 mg vs. 12.7 ± 3.6 mg, mean ± SD, p = 0.045). Group C needed the least manual abdominal compression (group A, B, and C: 81.9, 69, and 59%, respectively, p = 0.005) and had the least post-procedure abdominal bloating (group A, B, and C: 2.2 ± 2.4, 2.2 ± 2.1, and 1.5 ± 1.9, respectively, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

We found that limited use of low-air insufflation in the rectum and sigmoid is the procedure of choice for colonoscopic examination.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH, et al. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology. 1997;112:17–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindsay DC, Freeman JG, Cobden I, et al. Should colonoscopy be the first investigation for colonic disease? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988;296:167–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Waye JD, Bashkoff E. Total colonoscopy: Is it always possible? Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:152–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

  6. Cheung HY, Chung CC, Kwok SY, et al. Improvement in colonoscopy performance with adjunctive magnetic endoscope imaging: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2006;38:214–217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brocchi E, Pezzilli R, Tomassetti P, et al. Warm water or oil-assisted colonoscopy: toward simpler examinations? Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:581–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cotton PB, Williams CB (1996) Practical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Blackwell Science, p 224.

  9. Brandt LJ, Boley SJ, Sammartano R. Carbon dioxide and room air insufflation of the colon. Effects on colonic blood flow and intraluminal pressure in the dog. Gastrointest Endosc. 1986;32:324–329.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Church JM. Warm water irrigation for dealing with spasm during colonoscopy: simple, inexpensive, and effective. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:672–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Woltjen JA. A retrospective analysis of cecal barotrauma caused by colonoscope air flow and pressure. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:37–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bretthauer M, Hoff GS, Thiis-Evensen E, et al. Air and carbon dioxide volumes insufflated during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:203–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C, et al. Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy. 2002;34:435–440.

    Article  CAS  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. Stevenson GW, Wilson JA, Wilkinson J, et al. Pain following colonoscopy: elimination with carbon dioxide. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:564–567.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee JG, Vigil H, Leung JW. A randomized controlled trial of total colonic decompression after colonoscopy to improve patient comfort. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:95–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sumanac K, Zealley I, Fox BM, et al. Minimizing postcolonoscopy abdominal pain by using CO(2) insufflation: a prospective, randomized, double blind, controlled trial evaluating a new commercially available CO(2) delivery system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:190–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinberg EN, Howden CW. Randomized controlled trial of rectal tube placement for the management of abdominal distension following colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:444–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:33–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rex DK. Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2866–2877.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leung JW, Salera R, Toomsen L et al. (2008) Pilot feasibility study of the method of water infusion without air insufflation in sedated colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci.

  23. Hamamoto N, Nakanishi Y, Morimoto N, et al. A new water instillation method for colonoscopy without sedation as performed by endoscopists-in-training. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:825–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baumann UA. Water intubation of the sigmoid colon: Water instillation speeds up left-sided colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 1999;31:314–317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bernstein C, Thorn M, Monsees K, et al. A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:72–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yoshikawa I, Honda H, Nagata K, et al. Variable stiffness colonoscopes are associated with less pain during colonoscopy in unsedated patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:3052–3055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Waye JD, Bashkoff E. Total colonoscopy: is it always possible? Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:152–154.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. 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 

  30. Robinson FP, Dundee JW, Halliday NJ. Age affects the induction dose of propofol (‘Diprivan’). Postgrad Med J. 1985;61(Suppl 3):157–159.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hilton P, Dev VJ, Major E. Intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and alfentanil. The influence of age and weight. Anaesthesia. 1986;41:640–643.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research funds from Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital, Chia-Yi, Taiwan

    Yu-Hsi Hsieh & Kuo-Chih Tseng

  2. School of Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi University, Hwalien, Taiwan

    Yu-Hsi Hsieh & Kuo-Chih Tseng

  3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, 135 Nanxiao Street, Changhua City, 500, Taiwan

    Hwai-Jeng Lin

  4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Hwai-Jeng Lin

  5. School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Hwai-Jeng Lin

Authors
  1. Yu-Hsi Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuo-Chih Tseng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hwai-Jeng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hwai-Jeng Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hsieh, YH., Tseng, KC. & Lin, HJ. Limited Low-Air Insufflation Is Optimal for Colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 55, 2035–2042 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1210-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1210-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation