Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial

Artur Pasternak, Miroslaw Szura, Rafal Solecki, Maciej Matyja, Antoni Szczepanik, Andrzej Matyja, Artur Pasternak, Miroslaw Szura, Rafal Solecki, Maciej Matyja, Antoni Szczepanik, Andrzej Matyja

Abstract

Background: In many countries, colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening are performed without sedation due to the cost. Changes in the structure of the endoscopes are designed to facilitate the colonoscopic examination, reduce the duration of the procedure, and improve the imaging of the intestinal lumen. The variable stiffness of the endoscope and the recently introduced responsive insertion technology (RIT) are features aimed at easing colonoscope insertion and reducing the discomfort and pain during the examination. The aim of the study is to analyze whether the new RIT system can improve the practice of colonoscopy under no anesthesia with respect to the widely available variable stiffness colonoscopes.

Materials and methods: This analysis included 647 patients who underwent complete colonoscopy in the screening program. All colonoscopies were performed without sedation. Olympus series 180 and 190 endoscopes equipped with a magnetic positioning system were used. Group I included patients who were examined using endoscopes equipped with responsive insertion technology (RIT), and group II included patients who were examined using conventional variable stiffness colonoscopies. The main objective was to evaluate the cecal intubation time, the number of loops, the requirement to apply manual pressure to different areas of the abdomen and the degree of discomfort and pain expressed on a visual analogue scale (VAS). ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01688557.

Results: Group I consisted of 329 patients, and group II included 318 patients. The mean age of the patients was 58.4 years (SD ± 4.21). Both groups were compared in terms of age, sex, and BMI. The mean cecal intubation time was 209 s in group I and 224 s in group II (p < 0.05). Increased loop formation was observed upon endoscope insertion in group II (1.7 vs. 1.35) (p < 0.05) and required more manual pressure to the abdomen (2.2 vs. 1.7) (p = 0.001). In group I, less discomfort and pain, as graded on a VAS (2.3 vs. 2.6), were noted.

Conclusions: The implementation of RIT reduced of the cecal intubation time. The modified structure of the endoscope rendered the colonoscopic examination easier by reducing loop formation upon insertion with a subsequently reduced rate of auxiliary maneuvers.

Keywords: Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; Responsive insertion technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Miroslaw Szura, Artur Pasternak, Rafal Solecki, Maciej Matyja, Antoni Szczepanik, and Andrzej Matyja have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consort diagram of patient enrollment
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
MEI: mild endoscope passage through the splenic flexure with use of RIT
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
MEI: acute angle of endoscope passage through the splenic flexure using conventional technology (flexure under tension)

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France. 2013 Available at . Accessed 4 May 2015
    1. Manser CN, Bachmann LM, Brunner J, et al. Colonoscopy screening markedly reduces the occurrence of colon carcinomas and carcinoma-related death: a closed cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.040.
    1. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L, et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:709–717. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.09.001.
    1. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1095–1105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969.
    1. Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE, et al. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:770–775. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.12.030.
    1. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:525–532. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198809013190901.
    1. Snover DC. Update on the serrated pathway to colorectal carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2011;42:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.06.002.
    1. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:967–974. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00500.x.
    1. Xie Q, Chen B, Liu L, Gan H. Does the variable-stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of the variable stiffness colonoscope compared with the standard adult colonoscope. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:151. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-12-151.
    1. Martinez JL, Calleja JL. A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53(6):694–695.
    1. Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, Williams CB. A new variable stiffness colonoscope makes colonoscopy easier: a randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2000;46(6):801–805. doi: 10.1136/gut.46.6.801.
    1. Harris JK, Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Gonvers JJ, Vader JP. Factors associated with the technical performance of colonoscopy: an EPAGE study. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39:678–689. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2007.02.012.
    1. Cuesta R, Sola-Vera J, Uceda F, García Sepulcre MF, Morillo E, Vázquez N. Does “responsive insertion technology” improve practice of colonoscopy? Results of a randomized study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(3):355–361. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2013.871576.
    1. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(Suppl 4):16–28. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.021.
    1. Hansen JJ, Ulmer BJ, Rex DK. Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:52–56. doi: 10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04022.x.
    1. Leung FW. Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2008;53:1462–1467. doi: 10.1007/s10620-007-0025-9.
    1. Prietode Frías C, Muñoz-Navas M, Carretero C, Carrascosa J, Betés MT, de la Riva S, et al. Estudio comparativo entre un colonoscopio con tecnología RIT (“Responsive Insertion Technology”) y un colonoscopio de rigidez variable convencional. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2013;105:208–214. doi: 10.4321/S1130-01082013000400005.
    1. Rex DK, Khalfan HK. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;15:661–672. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2005.08.003.
    1. Rex DK. Colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000;10:135–160.
    1. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al. Improvement in cecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:885–889. doi: 10.1080/00365520601127125.
    1. Saito Y, Kimura H. Responsive insertion technology. Dig Endosc. 2011;23(Suppl 1):164–167. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01136.x.
    1. Geyer M, Guller U, Beglinger C. Carbon dioxide insufflation in routine colonoscopy is safe and more comfortable: results of a randomized controlled double-blinded trial. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2011;2011:378906. doi: 10.1155/2011/378906.
    1. Waye JD. Completing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2681–2682. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.03172.x.
    1. Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:964–968. doi: 10.1007/BF02049733.
    1. Witte TN, Enns R. The difficult colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2007;21:487–490. doi: 10.1155/2007/520431.
    1. Park HJ, Hong JH, Kim HS, et al. Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-5.
    1. Prieto-de-Frías C, Muñoz-Navas M, Carretero C, Carrascosa J, Betés MT, de la Riva S, Herraiz MT, Súbtil JC. Comparative study of a responsive insertion technology (RIT) colonoscope versus a variable-stiffness colonoscope. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2013;105(4):208–213. doi: 10.4321/S1130-01082013000400005.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren