PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8603544

Colonoscopy without sedation.

Abstract

PURPOSE AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-eight consecutive nonsedated colonoscopies were prospectively evaluated over an 18-month period. The cecum was intubated in 250 cases (97 percent). Polypectomies or biopsies were performed in 77 cases (31 percent). Indications for colonoscopy included history of polyps (32 percent), hematochezia (28 percent), family history of colon cancer (16 percent), prior history of colon cancer (9 percent), change in bowel habits (12 percent), abnormal flexible sigmoidoscopy (6 percent), and inflammatory bowel disease (3 percent). RESULTS: Sedation was withheld for the following reasons: patient preference (57 percent), medical problems (2 percent), prior resection (16 percent), surgeon preference (6.5 percent), lack of intravenous access (3 percent), and age (1 percent). Three patients (1.5 percent) required sedation to complete the procedure. Procedure-related pain was based on a scale from zero to three. One hundred thirty-nine patients (61 percent) rated their pain as either zero (no pain) or one (mild pain), and 217 patients (8 percent) indicated that they would prefer their next colonoscopy to be performed without sedation. One hundred twelve patients had previously undergone sedated colonoscopy. Ninety-two (92 percent) preferred nonsedated to sedated procedures. Average procedure time was 13.7 (range, 0.5 to 85) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Several series have studied nonsedated endoscopic upper and lower gastrointestinal evaluations. None, however, have evaluated patient comfort and satisfaction. In our prospective series of 258 consecutive nonsedated colonoscopies, we found the procedure to be safe, effective, and well accepted.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P A Cataldo. 1996. Colonoscopy without sedation.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02049463

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparative Efficacy of Different AI Systems for Polyp Detection by Size During Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (≥18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (≤5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and τ2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.

Colonoscopy