SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Colonoscopy”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 829 records · Page 46Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Use of video and magnetic endoscope imaging for rating competence at colonoscopy: validation of a measurement tool.

BACKGROUND: Counting the number of procedures performed provides at best a crude measure of technical competence in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a qualitative and a quantitative score for measuring technical competency in colonoscopy using videotape evaluation. METHODS: Eighteen endoscopists with varying levels of experience were prospectively videotaped during colonoscope insertion. The following were recorded simultaneously: a closed circuit television view showing instrument handling, the endoscopic luminal view, and a continuous display of the colonoscope configuration (magnetic endoscope imaging). Videotapes were reviewed blindly and in random order by 3 experts. Performance in 3 categories was evaluated: (1) manipulation of instrument controls (0-10), (2) manipulation of the insertion tube (0-6) and (3) depth of insertion (0-4). A global assessment of competence was given for each endoscopist. RESULTS: Comparing the total scores as assessed by the 3 blinded experts, for each individual endoscopist, there were significant differences. However, there was good interobserver agreement and correlation between the individual scores and global assessment ratings of competence (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The video assessment tool described appears to measure technical competence at colonoscopy, although in its present form it lacks reliability. Refinement of the score may improve reliability and deserves further evaluation.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2002

Patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the safety, effectiveness, and patient acceptance of patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in a group of elderly patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred patients over 65 years of age were recruited and randomized to patient-controlled sedation (n = 50) or intravenous sedation (n = 50) groups by means of computer-generated numbers. In the patient-controlled sedation group, a mixture of propofol and alfentanil was delivered by means of a patient-controlled pump; each bolus delivered 4.8 mg propofol and 12 microg alfentanil. No loading dose was used and the lockout time was set at zero. In the intravenous sedation group, fixed doses of diazemuls (0.1 mg/kg) and meperidine (0.5 mg/kg) were given with further increases in dosages administered at the discretion of the endoscopist. Outcome measures assessed included cardiopulmonary complications, recovery time, pain score, and satisfaction score. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of patients in the patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation groups were, respectively, 72.4 years (5.3) and 73.5 years (6.1). The mean dose of propofol consumed in the patient-controlled sedation group was 0.79 (0.46) mg/kg. The mean doses of diazemuls and meperidine consumed in intravenous sedation group were, respectively, 5.8 (1.3) mg and 30.1 (6.8) mg. Hypotension occurred in 2 (4%) patients in the patient-controlled sedation group and 14 (28%) in the intravenous sedation group (p < 0.01). Oxygen desaturation was recorded for 4 patients (8%) in the intravenous sedation group. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) recovery time was significantly shorter in the patient-controlled sedation group compared with the intravenous sedation group (respectively, 0 minutes [IQR 0-5] vs. 5 minutes [IQR 5-10]; p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for pain and satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-controlled sedation appears to be safer than intravenous sedation, with comparable effectiveness and acceptance, in elderly patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

BACKGROUND: The medical profession, payers, and patients are interested increasingly in the quality of endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has recommended "report cards" by which endoscopists may keep track of certain key elements of their practice including indications, findings, duration, technical end points, complications, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: The GI-Trac endoscopy reporting database includes many of the data points recommended by ASGE for report cards. Seven hospital centers in North America have been collecting data prospectively for varying periods since 1994. These data were aggregated and analyzed by individual endoscopist. A total of 69 endoscopists performed 17,868 colonoscopies. RESULTS: Twelve percent of the endoscopists reported that more than 20% of procedures they performed were completely normal. The average time taken by 27% of endoscopists was more than 40 minutes (without trainees involved), and only 55% achieved a cecal intubation rate of over 90%; for 9% the rate was less than 80%. Complication rates were too low for individual comparisons. CONCLUSION: These data provide an idea of colonoscopy performance by individual endoscopists in mainly academic centers. Incorporating all recommended data elements in future reporting databases will contribute to meaningful bench marking and to quality improvement efforts.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Perforation during colonoscopy in endoscopic ambulatory surgical centers.

BACKGROUND: Perforation as a complication of colonoscopy is estimated to occur in 0.01% to 0.3% of procedures, but the frequency in ambulatory settings is unknown. This study determined the number of perforations occurring within a network of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers. METHODS: A total of 116,000 colonoscopies were performed within one network of 45 endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers in the United States during 1999. All identified perforations were reported to the network clinical director and reviewed by a panel of 3 gastroenterologists. RESULTS: There were 37 (0.03%) perforations; 27 in women and 10 in men. Median patient age was 75 years (range 39-87 years); 18 patients (49%) had diverticular disease and 20 (54%) had a history of pelvic or colonic surgery. Twenty-four (65%) procedures were diagnostic, and 13 (35%) were therapeutic. The most common site of perforation was the sigmoid colon (62%); followed by the ascending colon (16%); cecum, transverse colon, and splenic flexure (11%); and rectum, anastomotic, or unknown (11%). The time to diagnosis ranged from immediate to 72 hours (29 <1 hour, 8 >1 hour). All patients were hospitalized; 35 (95%) underwent exploratory laparotomy, and 2 (5%) were treated conservatively. No patient died. CONCLUSIONS: Reported perforations for procedures performed in endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers occurred most frequently during diagnostic colonoscopy in older woman with a history of surgery or diverticular disease. Reported perforations in endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers were uncommon.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Resource utilization and procedure parameters for the Stretta procedure: comparison with endoscopic ultrasonography and colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: No data are available regarding resource utilization of the Stretta procedure and its impact on endoscopy units in comparison with other endoscopy procedures. METHODS: This observational cohort study compared the demographic data and procedural parameters for our first 13 cases undergoing the Stretta procedure, with similar endoscopic colonoscopy and ultrasonography (EUS) cases. RESULTS: The characteristics of the patients were similar among these groups. The patients undergoing the Stretta procedure required significantly more sedative medication than those undergoing colonoscopy or EUS. The Stretta procedure time and recovery time were significantly longer than the colonoscopy procedure time and recovery time. The Stretta procedure time was also significantly longer than the EUS procedure time, but the Stretta recovery time was not significantly longer than the EUS recovery time. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is small and not randomized, it provides useful information regarding how endoscopic procedures compare with one another. Furthermore, these findings have implications for determining endoscopy unit staffing, work equivalency, and appropriate reimbursement.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

PubMed2006

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using sigmoidoscopy followed by colonoscopy: a feasibility and efficacy study on a cancer institute based population.

BACKGROUND: Advanced distal neoplasia found at sigmoidoscopy could be the marker for more proximal lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the setting of a screening clinic, subjects underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. If no significant lesion was found, sigmoidoscopy was planned after 5 years. If an advanced neoplasia was found, colonoscopy was performed just after the first sigmoidoscopy and at 1, 3 and 5 years. If a non-advanced neoplasia was found, sigmoidoscopy was performed at 1, 3 and 5 years and followed by colonoscopy if advanced lesion was found. RESULTS: At first screening 1704/1912 (88%) subjects had a negative sigmoidoscopy, 104 (5.4%) had an advanced neoplasia, 96 (6%) had a non-advanced neoplasia and eight (0.4%) had invasive colorectal cancer (CRC). At follow-up examinations at 1, 3 and 5 years, among 170 subjects with advanced and non-advanced neoplasia, one developed invasive CRC and 47 (31.6%), advanced neoplasia. At 5 years, among 718 first negative sigmoidoscopies, 572 (80%) were confirmed negative and 97 (14%) had advanced neoplasia. Colorectal cancer status at 5 years could be checked for interval cancers in 97% of subjects and no CRC was diagnosed in subjects who did not attend sigmoidoscopy at 5 years. Comparison of the incidence of invasive CRC to the data of registries of the Netherlands and Luxembourg suggested that the incidence of CRC was decreased by 36%-46%. Seven of the nine CRCs were Duke's A and the two others were Duke's B and C. CONCLUSIONS: Screening with sigmoidoscopy followed by colonoscopy in case of positive sigmoidoscopy leads to substantial decreases in the incidence of CRC. Most CRCs found are at an early, curable stage of their development.

Aged↗

PubMed1998

Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer: preliminary cost analysis of physician examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, chest x-ray, and colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: This study is the first to examine the relative and absolute costs of physician examination, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assessment, chest x-ray, and colonoscopy in detecting recurrent disease in patients who have undergone surgical resection for primary colon carcinoma. METHODS: Of the 1356 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group patients in Intergroup Protocol 0089 who underwent surgical resection for Dukes' B2 and C colon carcinoma, 421 patients who developed recurrent disease were reviewed. Follow-up testing was performed according to protocol guidelines, with the cost of each test equal to 1995 Medicare reimbursement. Follow-up was defined as the time to recurrence for the 421 patients in whom disease recurred (mean 18.6 months) or up to 5 years for the additional 930 patients in whom disease did not recur (mean 38.6 months). Patients were divided into three categories: nonrecurrent, recurrent but not resectable, and recurrent but resectable with curative intent. The estimated mean cost of each test in detecting group 3 (recurrent but resectable) patients was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 421 patients who developed recurrent disease, 96 underwent surgical resection of their disease with curative intent (group 3). For group 3 patients, the first indication of recurrent disease was CEA testing (30), chest x-ray (12), colonoscopy (14), and other (40). Of the 40 "other" patients, 24 presented with symptoms. Routine physician examination, however, failed to identify a single resectable recurrence, and the total cost for physician examination was $418,615. The detection rate for CEA testing was 2.2%, the total cost was $170,880, and the cost per recurrence was $5,696. The detection rate for chest x-ray was 0.9%, the total cost was $120,934, and the cost per recurrence was $10,078. The detection rate of colonoscopy was 1%, the total cost was $641,344, and the cost per recurrence was $45,810. CONCLUSIONS: CEA measurement was the most cost-effective test in detecting potentially curable recurrent disease. Physician visits were useful only in the evaluation of symptoms; a routine physician examination had no added benefit.

Antineoplastic Agents↗

PubMed1986

Colonoscopy after Golytely preparation in acute rectal bleeding.

Thirty-five consecutive patients with acute hematochezia, negative gastric aspirates, and negative sigmoidoscopy underwent urgent colonoscopy after Golytely purgation. Mucosal visualization was excellent. Colonic bleeding lesions were identified in 24 of 35 patients, and hemorrhage originating proximal to the ileoceal valve was documented in three of these 35 patients. Therapeutic endoscopic electrocautery, employed in 12 of 35 patients, was effective in 11. The peroral preparation was well tolerated, and there were no complications of the preparation or of colonoscopy. The data suggest that urgent colonoscopy following Golytely purgation is a safe, sensitive, and specific diagnostic procedure that provides an opportunity for early nonoperative treatment of acute colonic hemorrhage.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

The use of GoLYTELY and Dulcolax in combination in outpatient colonoscopy.

One hundred and sixty patients were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of the polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution GoLYTELY (Braintree Laboratories, Inc., Braintree, MA, U.S.A.) and the contact laxative bisacodyl (Dulcolax, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Ridgefield, CT, U.S.A.) in improving outpatient preparation for colonoscopy. One hundred and fourteen patients completed the study; 59 received GoLYTELY followed by three Dulcolax capsules and 55 received GoLYTELY followed by three placebo capsules. A statistically significant improvement in the group receiving Dulcolax was noted in overall quality of preparation (p = 0.015) and amount of liquid stool present during colonoscopy (p = 0.02). We noted no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse effects. No patient in either group suffered from symptomatic orthostatic hypotension. These results suggest that an improved colonoscopy preparation can be obtained by combining a standard GoLYTELY preparation with three 5-mg Dulcolax tablets, without sacrificing patient safety or comfort.

Ambulatory Care↗

PubMed1997

Ileocecal intussusception of small-bowel lymphoma: diagnosis by colonoscopy.

Intussusception is rare in adults. There is little information on the role of colonoscopy in colonic intussusception. We report, to our knowledge, the first adult case of small-bowel lymphoma causing ileocecal intussusception in which the diagnosis was made by colonoscopy. Colonoscopy has a useful role in the diagnosis and management of ileocecal intussusception.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Unplanned work absence following outpatient colonoscopy.

The authors investigated the incidence of unplanned work absence the day following outpatient colonoscopy and examined factors associated with missing work. A total of 250 patients were studied. Patient demographic information, the length of the procedure, time of day the exam was performed, and the amount and type of sedation medication used was obtained at the time of the procedure. The incidence and reasons for missing work were elicited via a phone survey 7 days postprocedure. Ten patients (4%) had an unplanned work absence the day after their colonoscopy. No complications were noted. Feeling sleepy and weak or abdominal pain and bloating were the most common reasons for missing work. In univariate analyses, patients with an unplanned work absence were more likely to be younger (p = 0.009), and female (p = 0.02) compared with patients who returned to work. No statistically significant differences were found with regard to the amount of sedation medication used, the length of the procedure, or whether the procedure was performed in the morning or afternoon. Unplanned work absence is low following outpatient colonoscopy in a community-based practice. Female gender and younger age are associated with a higher likelihood of missing work. Postprocedure work absence may have a greater economic impact than procedure-related complications.

Absenteeism↗

PubMed2000

Relief of small bowel obstruction following colonoscopy in a case of gallstone ileus.

We describe a patient who presented with mechanical obstruction of the small bowel secondary to impaction of the ileocecal valve from a gallstone. The stone impaction of the ileocecal valve was confirmed by colonoscopy. Although the stone was disimpacted, it could not be trapped and extracted during colonoscopy. Thereafter, the patient's small bowel obstruction was relieved with no further intervention. Even though surgery is the gold standard for the management of gallstone ileus. colonoscopy can be useful in management of patients with gallstone ileus in whom surgery is contraindicated. A review of the literature is also presented.

Aged↗

PubMed2001

A randomized, controlled trial of interactive, multimedia software for patient colonoscopy education.

The purpose of our study was to assess the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in patients having colonoscopies. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial in large, multispecialty clinic. Eighty-six patients were referred for colonoscopies. The interventions were standard education versus standard education plus CAI, and the outcome measures were anxiety, comprehension, and satisfaction. Computer-assisted instruction had no effect on patients' anxiety. The group receiving CAI demonstrated better overall comprehension (p < 0.001). However, Comprehension of certain aspects of serious complications and appropriate postsedation behavior were unaffected by educational method. Patients in the CAI group were more likely to indicate satisfaction with the amount of information provided when compared with the standard education counterparts (p = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was unaffected by educational method. Computer-assisted instruction for colonoscopy provided better comprehension and greater satisfaction with the adequacy of education than standard education. Computer-assisted instruction helps physicians meet their educational responsibilities with no decrement to the interpersonal aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Patient-controlled anesthesia for colonoscopy using propofol: results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: We studied the feasibility of using patient-controlled anesthesia (PCA) for conscious sedation during colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients having elective colonoscopy had medications delivered in bolus fashion by PCA pump (Abbot Lifecare Provider 5500 Infusion System). Four patients received propofol as 20 mg/dose boluses, and four patients received propofol in a 0.3 mg/kg/dose. Twelve patients received propofol at 0.2 mg/kg/dose with alfentanil at 4 microg/kg/dose. RESULTS: There were no clinically unacceptable changes in continuously monitored blood pressure, pulse rate, ECG, or respiratory rate. There were no adverse effects from the sedation and no complications due to colonoscopy. Recovery time was rapid, but recall persisted in most subjects. Pain and overall discomfort in patients given propofol only were rated as moderate by most subjects. CONCLUSION: Patient-controlled anesthesia is feasible for use in endoscopic sedation. Propofol alone did not allow adequate pain relief, but propofol and alfentanil together seemed to provide good control of pain.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1998

Colonoscopy as a mass screening tool.

There is strong evidence that population screening can reduce mortality from colorectal cancer. Screening tests such as faecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy are used to identify patients with an increased risk of cancer who would benefit from a full colon examination. There is indirect evidence that colonoscopy may be effective as a mass screening tool. Potential benefits of colonoscopy include the ability to visualize the entire colon and to detect and remove polyps, which could prevent cancers, and identify cancers if present anywhere in the colon. Issues related to the implementation of a colonoscopy screening programme are discussed.

Colonoscopy↗

PubMed2005

Advances in colonic imaging: technical improvements in colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy has been available since the early 1970s and has become critical to the diagnosis and management of colorectal disorders. Features of the modern colonoscope and its variants are discussed, including the role of paediatric and variable stiffness colonoscopes for difficult insertion. The place of magnetic endoscope imaging systems and simulators in routine colonoscopy and training are examined. Finally, several recent innovations are used to illustrate how colonoscopy may evolve in the future, including new takes on the current instrument as well as potentially revolutionary pain-free, technically-easy, robotic devices for examination of the bowel.

Child↗

PubMed2005

Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The pediatric colonoscope is superior to the standard colonoscope in some patients with a fixed, angulated colon. A colonoscope thinner than the pediatric one is thought to outperform even the pediatric colonoscope in such cases. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of an ultrathin colonoscope, 9.8 mm in diameter, comparing it with pediatric and standard colonoscopes. METHODS: Three types of colonoscopes were used: ultrathin, pediatric, and standard. A total of 287 consecutive patients were assigned to three groups: ultrathin (n=94), pediatric (n=98), and standard (n=95). First assessment was the ratio of cecal intubation and the reasons for unsuccessful colonoscopy. The second was the time to cecal intubation. RESULTS: Cecal intubation rates were not different among three groups (96% in each). The main reasons for failed colonoscopy were looping in the ultrathin group, and angulation or stricture in the pediatric and standard groups. Mean time to the cecum was slightly longer in the ultrathin group (6.5 minutes) than the pediatric group (5.6 minutes) and standard group (6.1 minutes), but there were no significant differences among three groups. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy with the ultrathin colonoscope was as successful as with the pediatric and standard colonoscopes. The advantage of the ultrathin colonoscope might be notable in cases with stricture or severe angulation.

Adult↗

PubMed1992

Short report: comparison of two orally administered bowel preparations for colonoscopy--polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulphate.

Fifty-nine consecutive patients admitted for colonoscopy were randomized to receive polyethylene glycol or sodium picosulphate. Patients expressed their opinion in a questionnaire and the endoscopists, blinded to the preparation, assessed the cleanliness of different segments of the colon. There was no statistically significant difference in the taste-acceptability of the preparations, frequency of nausea, abdominal pain, peri-anal soreness or sleep disturbance between the two groups. Polyethylene glycol caused vomiting in 13% of patients while this was absent in those who received sodium picosulphate (P less than 0.05). The average number of stools passed was 12.4 in the polyethylene glycol and 8.6 in the sodium picosulphate groups; mean difference 3.8 (95% C.I. 0.7-6.9) with P less than 0.02. The overall cleanliness of the colon was better in the polyethylene glycol group (P = 0.002) as judged by the blinded colonoscopist. There was less delay (P = 0.06) and more completed colonoscopies (P = 0.01) in this group. Polyethylene glycol was a better preparation in all segments of the colon except the rectum. We conclude that polyethylene glycol is the choice of the colonoscopist and should be given to all patients; sodium picosulphate would be a good alternative if patients are intolerant. If a limited colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy is intended, sodium picosulphate may be preferred because of its acceptable efficacy and slightly advantageous side-effect profile.

Abdominal Pain↗