Background and Study Aims: Experts fail to reach the cecum in 2 - 10 % of colonoscopies. The purpose of this
case series was to evaluate the efficacy of a small-caliber, variable-stiffness colonoscope
in patients with incomplete colonoscopy.
Patients and Methods: The variable-stiffness colonoscope (Olympus America XPCF-140AL) was used by the same
examiner to reattempt colonoscopy immediately in all patients in whom colonoscopy
to the cecum with the standard colonoscope was incomplete.
Results: Sixteen of 385 attempted colonoscopies (4.2 %) did not reach the cecum with the standard
colonoscope due to looping (n = 12), fixed angulation of the sigmoid colon (n = 3),
and diverticulosis (n = 1). The procedures were deemed a failure after a mean of 28
min, despite the use of abdominal pressure and positional change in all patients.
Fifteen of the 16 patients (94 %) had a complete colonoscopy with the variable-stiffness
colonoscope. One patient had an incomplete colonoscopy with the variable-stiffness
colonoscope due to an obstructing mass in the transverse colon that was not reached
by the standard colonoscope. With the variable-stiffness colonoscope, the mean time
to cecal intubation was 10.3min; four patients (25 %) required a change in patient
position, and six patients (37.5 %) required abdominal pressure.
Conclusions: A variable-stiffness colonoscope allowed completion of colonoscopy in all patients
without obstruction who had an incomplete colonoscopy with the standard colonoscope.
Further study is needed to determine whether the variable-stiffness colonoscope should
be used routinely for colonoscopy.
References
- 1
Church J M.
Complete colonoscopy: How often? And if not, why not?.
Am J Gastroenterol.
1994;
89
556-560
- 2
Marshall J B, Barthel J S.
The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1993;
39
518-520
- 3
Waye J D, Bashkoff E.
Total colonoscopy: Is it always possible?.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1991;
37
152-154
- 4
Lehman G A.
Upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: Are thinner endoscopes preferable?.
Endoscopy.
1996;
28
436-437
- 5
Saiffudin T, Trivedi M, King P D. et al .
Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51
314-317
- 6
Kozarek R A, Botoman V A, Patterson D J.
Prospective evaluation of a small caliber upper endoscope for colonoscopy after unsuccessful
standard examination.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1989;
35
333-335
- 7
Bat L, Williams C B.
Usefulness of pediatric colonoscopes in adult colonoscopy.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1989;
35
329-332
- 8
Lichtenstein G R, Park P D, Long W B. et al .
Use of a push enteroscope improves ability to perform total colonoscopy in previously
unsuccessful attempts at colonoscopy in adult patients.
Am J Gastroenterol.
1999;
94
187-190
- 9
Marshall J B.
Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves success of total colonoscopy in selected adult
patients.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1996;
44
675-678
- 10
Brooker J C, Saunders B P, Shah S G, Williams C B.
A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: A randomised controlled
trial.
Gut.
2000;
46
801-805
- 11
Howell D A, Ku P M, Desilets D J, Campana J M.
A comparative trial of variable stiffness colonoscopes [abstract].
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51
AB58 (abstract 2448)
R. M. Katon, M.D.
Division of Gastroenterology, PV-310 · Oregon Health Sciences University ·
3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road · Portland, OR 97201-3098 · USA ·
Fax: + 1-503-494-7556
Email: katonr@ohsu.edu