Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2019 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 7

Newly-developed colonoscope (PCF-PQ260L) is useful for patients with difficult colons

Sayfa
630–635
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The PQL may be a good option for patientswho with difficult colons

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Background/Aims: Preforming total colonoscopy (TCS) is sometimes difficult due to adhesions or long colons.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The PCF-PQ260L (PQL)was developed to overcome TCS-related difficulties.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The PQL may be a good option for patientswho with difficult colons
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Background/Aims: Preforming total colonoscopy (TCS) is sometimes difficult due to adhesions or long colons. The PCF-PQ260L (PQL)was developed to overcome TCS-related difficulties. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance and usefulness of PQLfor difficult colon cases.Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective single center observational cohort study investigating differences in patient characteristics and examination performance between patients examined with PQL, versus standard (SD), scopes. Secondly, we directly comparedPQL and SD scopes in patients treated with both types of scope.Results: The PQL was used with 105 patients and SD scopes were used with 1119 patients. Patients in the PQL group were significantlyshorter (157cm vs 163cm, p< 0.01) and lighter, compared to the SD group (52 kg vs 58 kg, p< 0.01). There were no significant statisticaldifferences with regard to cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and adenoma detection. Direct comparison of use of PQL andSD scopes on the same patients revealed shorter average cecal intubation time (7 min vs 10 min, p< 0.01), and significantly increasednumbers of patients reporting no pain (66 % vs 20 %, p< 0.01) and needing no sedative drugs (48% vs 25 %, p< 0.01) associated withPQL use.Conclusion: The examination performance of the PQL scope was similar to the SD scope. The PQL may be a good option for patientswho with difficult colons

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

INOKI, K., YAMADA, M., KUWABARA, H., TAKAMARU, H., SEKIGUCHI, M., SAKAMOTO, T., MATSUDA, T., SAITO, Y. (2019). Newly-developed colonoscope (PCF-PQ260L) is useful for patients with difficult colons. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 7, 630–635. https://ajindex.com/articles/408824

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. New Eng J Med 1993; 329: 1977-81. [CrossRef] 2. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001; 48: 812-5. [CrossRef] 3. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. New Eng J Med 2012; 366: 687-96. [CrossRef] 4. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53. [CrossRef] 5. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. New Eng J Med 2010; 362: 1795-803. [CrossRef] 6. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. The New England journal of medicine 2014; 370: 1298-306. [CrossRef] 7. Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased Rate of Adenoma Detection Associates With Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105. [CrossRef] 8. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. The New England journal of medicine 2006; 355: 2533-41. [CrossRef] 9. Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK, et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-81. [CrossRef] 10. Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-6. [CrossRef] 11. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72. [CrossRef] 12. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. New Eng J Med 2000; 343: 162-8. [CrossRef] 13. Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E, et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. The New England journal of medicine 2006; 355: 1863-72. [CrossRef]