Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended in several countries, but uptake rates are often low. Fear of pain and also time-consuming costly sedation are barriers for colonoscopy, and thus development of colonoscopy equipment that decreases patient discomfort is worthwhile. This randomized controlled trial investigated the performance of an ultrathin colonoscope in CRC screening.

Patients and methods: Consecutive participants in a colonoscopy screening trial were randomized to examination with an ultrathin prototype colonoscope or a standard colonoscope. The main outcome measure was pain during the examination. Participants rated pain (no, slight, moderate, severe) using a validated questionnaire.

Results: From 187 enrolled participants (80 women [43 %]), 162 (87 %) responded to the questionnaire. The study groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Pain scores were significantly lower in the prototype instrument group compared with the standard group (78 % vs. 29 % of patients with no pain in prototype and standard groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06 – 0.23; P < 0.001). Cecal intubation rate was 98 % in the prototype group and 92 % in the standard group (P = 0.085). Sedation was used in 2 % and 7 % in the prototype and standard groups respectively (P = 0.12). Adenoma detection rate was 13 % in the prototype group vs. 24 % in the standard group (P = 0.052).

Conclusion: The new ultrathin Olympus colonoscope decreases patient pain during screening colonoscopy. This feature may improve uptake and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy. Further study is needed to evaluate the lower adenoma detection rate.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01370928.

• References

• 1 Pox C, Schmiegel W, Classen M. Current status of screening colonoscopy in Europe and in the United States. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 168-173
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Stock C, Brenner H. Utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and fecal occult blood test in 11 European countries: evidence from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Endoscopy 2010; 42: 546-556
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM et al. Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 989-995
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS et al. Patient time requirements for screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2401-2410
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Khalid-de Bakker CA, Jonkers DM, Hameeteman W et al. Cardiopulmonary events during primary colonoscopy screening in an average risk population. Neth J Med 2011; 69: 186-191
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Elphick DA, Donnelly MT, Smith KS et al. Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 21: 1076-1082
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S et al. Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639-646
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hoff G, Moritz V, Bretthauer M et al. Colonoscope with a sub-distal hyper-flaccid segment for improved insertion at colonoscopy: a randomized study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 104-108
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ 1995; 311: 1145-1148
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH. Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd edn. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 12 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1062-1068
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Fatima H, Rex DK, Rothstein R et al. Cecal insertion and withdrawal times with wide-angle versus standard colonoscopes: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 109-114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K et al. Comparison of standard vs high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e260-e266
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Rastogi A, Early DS, Gupta N et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard-definition white-light, high-definition white-light, and narrow-band imaging colonoscopy for the detection of colon polyps and prediction of polyp histology. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 593-602
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material