Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2020 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 10

Effect of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on post-colonoscopic pain: A prospective, randomized, controlled study

Pages
676–680
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: We found no favorable effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS in colonoscopy, including in patients

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: Room air (RA) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are widely used to insufflate the colon to examine the mucosa in colonosco-py.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to investi-gate the effect of CO2 on post-procedure pain sensation (PPPS) in comparison with RA.Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to the RA and CO2 insufflation groups in a 1:1 ratio.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: We found no favorable effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS in colonoscopy, including in patients
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: Room air (RA) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are widely used to insufflate the colon to examine the mucosa in colonosco-py. Pain, discomfort, and bloating can be seen during and after colonoscopy secondary to bowel distention. This study aimed to investi-gate the effect of CO2 on post-procedure pain sensation (PPPS) in comparison with RA.Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to the RA and CO2 insufflation groups in a 1:1 ratio. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to measure the pain before and after the colonoscopy. VAS score of 0 was accepted as the absence of pain and above 0 was accepted as the presence of pain. The primary outcome was to investigate the effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS. Secondary out-comes were to investigate the other contributing factors affecting PPPS and the effect of CO2 on PPPS in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).Results: A total of 204 patients were enrolled in the study. No significant difference in PPPS was seen between the 2 groups at any point in time after the colonoscopy. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in pain sensation between the CO2 and RA groups in patients with IBD. When we investigated the other contributing factors to pain sensation, body-mass index (BMI) was found to be significant at 30 minutes and BMI and colonoscopy time were found to be significant at 6 hours afterwards. Conclusion: We found no favorable effect of CO2 insufflation on PPPS in colonoscopy, including in patients

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDÜZ, F., KANİ, H. T., AKDENİZ, E., EREN, F., YILMAZ, Y., CHANG, S., ALAHDAB, Y. Ö. (2020). Effect of carbon dioxide versus room air insufflation on post-colonoscopic pain: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 10, 676–680. https://ajindex.com/articles/395366

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Raju GS, Gerson L, Das A, Lewis B; American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Insti-tute technical review on obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastro-enterology 2007; 133: 1694-717. [Crossref] 2. Min YW, Kim JS, Jeon SW, et al. Long-term outcome of capsule en-doscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 59-65. [Crossref] 3. Gerson LB, Fidler JL, Cave DR, Leighton JA. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding. Am J Gastro-enterol 2015; 110: 1265-87. [Crossref] 4. Pennazio M, Spada C, Eliakim R, et al. Small-bowel capsule en-doscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastro- intestinal Endoscopy Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 352-76. [Crossref] 5. Van de Bruaene C, Hindryckx P, Van de Bruaene L, De Looze D. Bleeding Lesion of the Small Bowel: an Extensive Update Leaving No Stone Unturned. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2018; 20: 5. [Crossref] 6. Xin L, Liao Z, Jiang YP, Li ZS. Indications, detectability, positive findings, total enteroscopy, and complications of diagnostic double- balloon endoscopy: a systematic review of data over the first decade of use. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 563-70. [Crossref] 7. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Casetti T, et al. Degree of concordance between double-balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 587-92. [Crossref] 8. Fujita M, Manabe N, Honda K, et al. Long-Term Outcome after Double-balloon Endoscopy in Patients with Obscure Gastrointesti-nal Bleeding. Digestion 2010; 82: 173-8. [Crossref] 9. May A, Färber M, Aschmoneit I, et al. Prospective multicenter tri-al comparing push-and-pull enteroscopy with the single- and dou-ble-balloon techniques in patients with small-bowel disorders. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 575-81. [Crossref] 10. Takano N, Yamada A, Watabe H, et al. Single-balloon versus dou-ble-balloon endoscopy for achieving total enteroscopy: a random-ized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 734-9. [Crossref] 11. Lenz P, Domagk D. Double-vs. single-balloon vs. spiral enteros-copy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 303-13. [Crossref] 12. Tang SJ, Christodoulou D, Zanati S, et al. Wireless capsule endos-copy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a single-center, one-year experience. Can J Gastroenterol 2004; 18: 559-65. [Crossref]