A prospective randomized study on the benefits of a new small-caliber colonoscope

Background and study aims: We compared the performance efficiency of a newly developed small-caliber colonoscope (PCF-PQ260 L) with passive bending, high force transmission, and an outer diameter of 9.2 mm with that of a standard colonoscope, in female and male patients, particularly with regard to passage through acute angulations or into the proximal colon.

Patients and methods: A total of 330 patients were randomly allocated to undergo small-caliber (n = 164) or standard (n = 166) colonoscopy. The patients were assessed for pain using a visual analogue scale (0 = none, 100 = extremely painful), and for cecal intubation, withdrawal time, difficulty of colonoscopy, dosage and level of sedation used, and any complications.

Results: Median maximum pain and overall pain during colonoscopy were significantly lower in the small-caliber group than in the standard group in women (25 vs. 45, P < 0.001 and 15 vs. 26, P = 0.001, respectively), whereas no significant differences were seen in men (8 vs. 10, P = 0.103 and 16 vs. 20, P = 0.166, respectively). Furthermore, no significant differences were seen between groups in cecal intubation rate or time to cecum in all patients or by sex.

Conclusions: Use of the small-caliber colonoscope reduced pain in female patients, but offered no advantage over standard colonoscopy in male patients. The performance of the small-caliber colonoscope was equivalent to that of the standard colonoscope in terms of cecal intubation rate and time to cecum, regardless of the sex of the patient.

• References

• 1 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
• 2 Benjamin SB. Pain or performance: what’s more important during colonoscopy?. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 430-431
• 3 Takahashi Y, Tanaka H, Kinjo M, Sakumoto K. Prospective evaluation of factors predicting difficulty and pain during sedation-free colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1295-1300
• 4 Okamoto M, Kawabe T, Kato J et al. Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 679-683
• 5 Saifuddin T, Trivedi M, King PD et al. Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 314-317
• 6 Kim WH, Cho YJ, Park JY et al. Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 600-605
• 7 Han Y, Uno Y, Munakata A. Does flexible small-diameter colonoscope reduce insertion pain during colonoscopy?. World J Gastroenterol 2000; 6: 659-663
• 8 Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE et al. 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 2006; 101: 2504-2510
• 9 Farraye FA, Horton K, Hersey H et al. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy using an upper endoscope is better tolerated by women. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1074-1080
• 10 Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, Williams CB. A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2000; 46: 801-805
• 11 Bretthauer M, Lynge AB, Thiis-Evensen E et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: safe and effective in sedated patients. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 706-709
• 12 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; 72: 693-700
• 13 Shida T, Katsuura Y, Teramoto O et al. Transparent hood attached to the colonoscope: does it really work for all types of colonoscopes?. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 2654-2658
• 14 Chen PJ, Shih YL, Chu HC et al. A prospective trial of variable stiffness colonoscopes with different tip diameters in unsedated patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 1365-1371
• 15 Marshall JB, Perez RA, Madsen RW. Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 838-841
• 16 Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M et al. Usefulness of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope as a backup in patients with difficult or incomplete colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1936-1940
• 17 Anderson JC, Walker G, Birk JW et al. Tapered colonoscope performs better than the pediatric colonoscope in female patients: a direct comparison through tandem colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 1042-1047
• 18 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
• 19 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
• 20 Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 1004-1017
• 21 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
• 22 Kaffes AJ, Mishra A, Ding SL et al. A prospective trial of variable stiffness pediatric vs. standard instrument colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 685-689
• 23 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G et al. Evaluation of a novel colonoscope designed for easier passage through flexures: a randomized study. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1123-1126
• 24 Saito Y, Kimura H. Responsive insertion technology. Dig Endosc 2011; 23: 164-167
• 25 Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J 2001; 18: 205-207
• 26 Lee JS, Hobden E, Stiell IG et al. Clinically important change in the visual analog scale after adequate pain control. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10: 1128-1130