Double-balloon endoscopy has been used to complete examination in

Double-balloon endoscopy has been used to complete examination in patients with prior unsuccessful or technically difficult colonoscopy (87.2% had a history of previous abdominal surgery).20 The comparisons regarding cecal intubation rate and pain score between WEC and double-balloon endoscopy in patients with difficult colonoscopy deserves further investigation. Unsedated

patients can participate more SCH772984 molecular weight easily in changing position and abdominal compression, both of which are well-accepted maneuvers for facilitating intubation, especially in difficult colonoscopy. As shown in our study, 65.5% and 38.2% of patients undergoing traditional colonoscopy with air insufflation, respectively, needed to change position or receive abdominal compression. The need for position change and abdominal compression was reduced by WEC, respectively, 2.3-fold and 5.2-fold. The data provided confirmation that these difficult colonoscopies were made easier. These superior attributes also were recognized by Vemulapalli and Rex21

in their retrospective study of patients with redundant colons CYC202 research buy and previous incomplete colonoscopies. Double-balloon, single-balloon, transparent hood-attached,22 small-caliber,23 variable-stiffness or overtube-assisted24 endoscopes had been shown to be useful in difficult colonoscopy. Carbon dioxide insufflation,25 the patient listening to music,26 magnetic endoscope imaging,27 and oil lubrication28 also were reported to be useful for difficult colonoscopy. Unlike these methods, WEC is characterized by prevention of lengthening and distention of the colon. Only minimal discomfort (maximum pain score of 2.1 ± 1.8) was reported, confirming that the examination was well-tolerated by most unsedated Asian patients.12 Thus, it is an appropriate method for the patients who are not suitable for sedation or where sedation is less available. A comparison of WEC with each of the

above methods in patients with documented, Flavopiridol (Alvocidib) or in those with factors associated with difficult colonoscopy will be instructive. The strengths of the present study are in the design (prospective RCT with patient blinding) and in the analysis (intention-to-treat method). The limitations include performance at a single, tertiary-care referral center by only two experienced endoscopists. The lack of blinding of the assistant who gathered the data on pain scores and willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy exposed these outcomes to uncertain bias. The absence of statistical significance in the higher polyp detection rate is likely a type II error due to the small sample size. In conclusion, the current study provides confirmation of the proof-of-principle observations that WEC is applicable in unsedated patients.

This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>