Difference in real-time magnetic image analysis of colonic looping patterns between males and females undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy

Abstract

Background and study aim Magnetic imaging technology is of proven benefit to trainees in colonoscopy, but few studies have examined its benefits in experienced hands. There is evidence that colonoscopy is more difficult in women. We set out to investigate (i) associations between the looping configurations in the proximal and distal colon and (ii) differences in the looping prevalence between the sexes. We have examined their significance in terms of segmental intubation times and position changes required for the completion of colonoscopy.

Patients and methods We analyzed 103 consecutive synchronized luminal and magnetic image videos of diagnostic colonoscopies with normal anatomy undertaken by a single experienced operator.

Results Deep transverse loops and sigmoid N-loops were more common in females. A deep transverse loop was more likely to be present if a sigmoid alpha-loop or N-loop had formed previously. Patients with sigmoid N-loops were turned more frequently from left lateral to supine before the sigmoid-descending junction was reached, but there was no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern.

Conclusions This study has reexamined the prevalence of the common looping patterns encountered during colonoscopy and has identified differences between the sexes. This finding may offer an explanation as to why colonoscopy has been shown to be more difficult in females. Although a deep transverse loop following a resolved sigmoid alpha-loop was the most commonly encountered pattern, no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern could be shown. It is the first study to examine segmental completion times using a magnetic imager in expert hands.

• References

• 1 Bowles CJA, 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
• 2 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
• 3 Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38: 964-968
• 4 Mitchell RMS, McCallion K, Gardiner KR. et al. Successful colonoscopy; completion rates and reasons for incompletion. Ulster Med J 2002; 71: 34-37
• 5 Koido S, Ohkusa T, Nakae K. et al. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy at a Japanese academic hospital. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 6961-6967
• 6 Anderson JC, Messina CR, Cohn W. et al. Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 558-562
• 7 Haycock A, Cohen J, Saunders BP. et al. Cotton and Williams’ Practical Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2013
• 8 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
• 9 Park HJ, Hong JH, Kim HS. et al. Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees. BMC Med Educ 2013; 13: 5
• 10 Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 355-366
• 11 Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR. et al. Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 319-324
• 12 Ward ST, Mohammed MA, Walt R. et al. An analysis of the learning curve to achieve competency at colonoscopy using the JETS database. Gut 2014; 63: 1746-1754
• 13 Chen Y, Duan YT, Xie Q. et al. Magnetic endoscopic imaging vs standard colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 7197-7204
• 14 Eickhoff A, Pickhardt PJ, Hartmann D. et al. Colon anatomy based on CT colonography and fluoroscopy: Impact on looping, straightening and ancillary manoeuvres in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 291-296
• 15 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
• 16 Sadahiro S, Ohmura T, Yamada Y. et al. Analysis of length and surface area of each segment of the large intestine according to age, sex and physique. Surg Radiol Anat 1992; 14: 251-257
• 17 Saunders BBPB, Fukumoto M, Halligan S. et al. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 124-126
• 18 Saunders B, Halligan S, Jobling C. et al. Can barium enema indicate when colonoscopy will be difficult?. Clin Radiol 1995; 50: 318-321
• 19 Hanson ME, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. et al. Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 774-779
• 20 Leung JW, Thai A, Yen A. et al. Magnetic endoscope imaging (ScopeGuide) elucidates the mechanism of action of the pain-alleviating impact of water exchange colonoscopy - attenuation of loop formation. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 142-146
• 21 Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3418-3422
• 22 Vergis N, McGrath AK, Stoddart CH. et al. Right Or Left in COLonoscopy (ROLCOL)? A randomized controlled trial of right- versus left-sided starting position in colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1576-1581
• 23 Nerup N, Preisler L, Svendsen MBS. et al. Assessment of colonoscopy by use of magnetic endoscopic imaging: design and validation of an automated tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 548-554
• 24 Preisler L, Søndergaard Svendsen MB, Søndergaard B. et al. Automatic and unbiased assessment of competence in colonoscopy: exploring validity of the Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS). Endosc Int open 2016; 4: E1238-E1243