liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Prospective comparison of an adult, an intermediate pediatric and a long pediatric colonoscope in the training process of gastrointestinal fellows to achieve high-quality practice in colonoscopy
Region Östergötland, Center for Surgery, Orthopaedics and Cancer Treatment, Mag- tarmmedicinska kliniken. Agios Panteleimon Gen Hosp Nikaia Piraeus, Greece.
Agios Panteleimon Gen Hosp Nikaia Piraeus, Greece.
Agios Panteleimon Gen Hosp Nikaia Piraeus, Greece.
Agios Panteleimon Gen Hosp Nikaia Piraeus, Greece.
Show others and affiliations
2022 (English)In: Annals of Gastroenterology, ISSN 1108-7471, E-ISSN 1792-7463, Vol. 35, no 4, p. 400-406Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Few data are available on the influence of colonoscope type on the training process and quality of colonoscopy. We conducted this prospective observational cohort study to investigate scope suitability for starting colonoscopy training, in relation to technical competence, quality indicators, and the patients comfort during diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods A total of 126 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study and assigned to one of 3 groups: adult colonoscope ([AC], n=41); intermediate pediatric colonoscope ([IPC], n=43); and long pediatric colonoscope ([LPC] n=42). Primary outcomes were completeness of the examination and minutes to the cecum. Secondary outcomes included patient tolerance, position change, use of abdominal compression, loop formation, kind of loop, and overall difficulty of the procedure.

Results Cecal intubation rates were not statistically different between the groups: AC/87.8%; IPC/81.4%; and LPC/92.8%. Terminal ileal intubation rate differed significantly among the 3 groups (P-0.015) with LPC having the higher rate (66.7% vs. 60.9%/AC and 37.2%/IPC). There were significant differences in positional changes (fewer with LPC/1.36 vs. AC/2.15 and I PC/2.09, P=0.027) and midazolam administered doses (lower with LPC/0.52 vs. AC/1.07 and IPC/0.93, P=0.032). Loop formation with subsequent resolution was significantly associated with more pain for the patient with all of the 3 colonoscope types.

Conclusions The LPC performs better in trainee hands than AC and IPC in terms of reaching competency, and quality indicators show less discomfort for the patients during colonoscopic procedures (lower midazolam dose and fewer positional changes). It could be considered the most suitable scope for starting high-quality colonoscopy training.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Athens, Greece: Beta Medical Publishers Ltd. , 2022. Vol. 35, no 4, p. 400-406
Keywords [en]
Colonoscopy; pediatric colonoscope; training; adult colonoscope
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-185611DOI: 10.20524/aog.2022.0717ISI: 000799014900001PubMedID: 35784628Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85133793349OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-185611DiVA, id: diva2:1666855
Available from: 2022-06-09 Created: 2022-06-09 Last updated: 2023-03-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Tribonias, GeorgeDaferera, NikiCharisis, DimitriosKarapiperis, Dimitrios
By organisation
Mag- tarmmedicinska klinikenDivision of Inflammation and InfectionFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
In the same journal
Annals of Gastroenterology
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 36 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf