Search

Background and objectives: recently, Olympus developed a new prototype (XCF-Q180AY2L) with responsive insertion technology (RIT), which besides the still known variable stiffness technology, included a passive bending section and a new high force insertion tube. Our objective was to investigate whether the use of this prototype could ease colonoscope insertion, increasing the cecal intubation rate, and/or shortening the cecal intubation time. Material and methods: the study was designed as a prospective observational study in 305 consecutive patients from a colo-rectal cancer screening program. We compared colonoscopies performed with conventional colonoscopes (CFH180AL/CFQ160L) with those performed with the prototype XCF-Q180AY2L. End points were mean cecal and terminal ileal intubation times, cecum intubation rate, and need for specific maneuvers. All colonoscopies were performed under sedation with intravenous propofol. Finally, 288 patients were included. Results: no complications were observed. Complete cecal intubation rate was 100 % in both groups. The ileum could be reached in 98.95 % of cases. Mean time required to reach the cecum was shorter in the prototype endoscope group (4.31 min, SD 2.63 min) than in the conventional endoscope group (4.66 min, SD 2.52 min) (p < 0.05). Compared with the standard colonoscope group, we observed in the prototype group less subjective sensation of difficulty in the passage of the sigma (p < 0.01), fewer maneuvers when it proved necessary to straighten the scope (p < 0.01), and less frequent need to modify the stiffness of the endoscope (p < 0.05). Conclusion: we concluded that the prototype endoscope (XCF-Q180AY2L) facilitated colonoscope insertion, requiring slightly less time to reach the cecum than a standard colonoscope.

Introduction: insufflation with carbon dioxide (CO2) during endoscopies compared to air is associated with a decrease in abdominal discomfort after the examination, because CO2 is readily absorbed through the small intestine and eliminated by the lungs. Aims: the objective of this randomized clinical trial was to assess the effect of CO2 insufflation on pain and abdominal distension after an ileo-colonoscopy (I) and after an ileo-colonoscopy plus gastroscopy (I+G). Material and methods: we included a total of 309 patients in the study and all endoscopies were performed under sedation with propofol. Two hundred fourteen patients underwent an I (132 with CO2 / 82 with air) and 95 underwent an I+G (53 with CO2 / 42 with air). Abdominal pain was studied at 10, 30 and 120 minutes of exploration and abdominal perimeter difference before and after the procedure. Results: both in group I and in group I+G, the use of CO2 translated into an average of abdominal pain significantly lower (p < 0.05). Similarly, a smaller increase in waist circumference was found among group I and group I+G, in patients where CO2 was used (p < 0.05). Conclusion: the insufflation of CO2 instead of air during the performance of endoscopy significantly reduces the discomfort and abdominal pain after an ileo-colonoscopy and after a gastroscopy + ileo-colonoscopy.Introducción: la insuflación con dióxido de carbono (CO2) durante las endoscopias digestivas comparado con el aire, se asocia a una disminución de las molestias abdominales después de la exploración, ya que el CO2 es fácilmente absorbido por el intestino delgado y eliminado por los pulmones. Objetivo: el objetivo de este ensayo clínico aleatorizado fue valorar el efecto de la insuflación de CO2 sobre el dolor y la distensión abdominal después de una ileo-colonoscopia (I) y después de una íleo-colonoscopia + gastroscopia (I+G). Material y métodos: se incluyeron un total de 309 pacientes en el estudio y todas las endoscopias fueron realizadas bajo sedación con propofol. A 214 pacientes se les realizó una I (132 con CO2 / 82 con aire) y a 95 se les realizó una I+G (53 con CO2 / 42 con aire). Se estudió el dolor abdominal a los 10, 30 y 120 min de la exploración y la diferencia de perímetro abdominal antes y después del procedimiento. Resultados: tanto en el grupo I como en el grupo I+G, se objetivó una media de dolor abdominal en los pacientes en los que se utilizó CO2 significativamente menor que en los que se utilizó aire (p < 0,05). Y de igual modo se objetivó un menor incremento en el perímetro abdominal para el grupo I y para el I+G en los pacientes en que se utilizó CO2 frente a los que se utilizó aire (p < 0,05). Conclusión: la insuflación de CO2 en vez de aire durante la realización de la exploración endoscópica, reduce significativamente el disconfort y el dolor abdominal después de una ileo-colonoscopia y después de una íleo-colonoscopia + gastroscopia.