Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial

Osamu Toyoshima, Toshihiro Nishizawa, Kosuke Sakitani, Tadahiro Yamakawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Kazushi Fukagawa, Keisuke Hata, Soichiro Ishihara, Hidekazu Suzuki, Osamu Toyoshima, Toshihiro Nishizawa, Kosuke Sakitani, Tadahiro Yamakawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Kazushi Fukagawa, Keisuke Hata, Soichiro Ishihara, Hidekazu Suzuki

Abstract

Background and aim: Looping is a major problem in colonoscopy, and it prolongs procedure time. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external abdominal compression device (back brace support belt; Maxbelt) with respect to cecal insertion time and other outcomes.

Methods: We performed a prospective study on outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy in Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups and were subjected to either Maxbelt (n = 39) or no device (control, n = 38) during colonoscopy. The colonoscopist was blinded to the study. The primary outcome that was observed was insertion time.

Results: The intubation time of the Maxbelt group was shorter than that of the no device group, but the difference was not significant (3.29 vs 4.49 min, P = 0.069). After stratifying by age, the use of Maxbelt significantly decreased cecal intubation time in elderly participants (age ≥ 45) compared to no device group (3.27 vs 5.00 min, P = 0.032). The use of the Maxbelt significantly decreased insertion difficulty encountered by the colonoscopist (P = 0.01). There was no difference in adenoma detection rate, manual pressure, position change, and adverse event.

Conclusions: The use of a back brace support belt could be a viable approach for colonoscopy in elderly patients. (University Hospital Medical Information Network: UMIN000029361).

Keywords: back brace support belt; colonoscopy; randomized, prospective trial.

© 2019 The Authors. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The back brace support belt used in this study (Maxbelt).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart showing flow of participants throughout trial.

References

    1. Bevan R, Rutter MD. Colorectal cancer screening‐who, how, and when? Clin. Endosc. 2018; 51: 37–49.
    1. Corley DA, Levin TR, Doubeni CA. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 370: 2541.
    1. Toyoshima O, Hata K, Yoshida S, Arita M. New‐generation chromoendoscopy may increase confidence in the DISCARD2 study. Gut. 2018; 67: 1742–3.
    1. Yee YK, Tan VP, Chan P, Hung IF, Pang R, Wong BC. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer in Asia. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2009; 24: 1810–16.
    1. Nishizawa T, Yahagi N. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection: technique and new directions. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2017; 33: 315–19.
    1. Catalano F, Catanzaro R, Branciforte G et al Colonoscopy technique with an external straightener. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2000; 51: 600–4.
    1. Tsutsumi S, Fukushima H, Kuwano H. Colonoscopy using an abdominal bandage. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007; 54: 1983–4.
    1. Lalak N, Englund R, Hanel KC. Incidence of rupture of aortic aneurysms after coincidental operation. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1995; 3: 30–4.
    1. Souto‐Ruzo J, Yanez‐Lopez J, Martinez‐Ares D, Liz‐Lois Palomares MT, Vazquez‐Iglesias JL. Rupture of an aneurysm of the right external iliac artery as a complication of colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2003; 98: 709–10.
    1. Toros AB, Ersoz F, Ozcan O. Does a fitted abdominal corset makes colonoscopy more tolerable? Dig. Endosc. 2012; 24: 164–7.
    1. Crockett SD, Cirri HO, Kelapure R, Galanko JA, Martin CF, Dellon ES. Use of an abdominal compression device in colonoscopy: a randomized, sham‐controlled trial. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016; 14: 850–7 e853.
    1. Yu GQ, Huang XM, Li HY et al Use of an abdominal obstetric binder in colonoscopy: a randomized, prospective trial. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018; 33: 1365–9.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010; 152: 726–32.
    1. Moon SY, Kim BC, Sohn DK et al Predictors for difficult cecal insertion in colonoscopy: the impact of obesity indices. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017; 23: 2346–54.
    1. Hsieh YH, Kuo CS, Tseng KC, Lin HJ. Factors that predict cecal insertion time during sedated colonoscopy: the role of waist circumference. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008; 23: 215–17.
    1. Toyoshima O, Yoshida S, Nishizawa T et al CF290 for pancolonic chromoendoscopy improved sessile serrated polyp detection and procedure time: a propensity score‐matching study. Endosc. Int. Open. 2019; 7: E987–93.
    1. Chen SW, Hui CK, Chang JJ et al Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy can significantly decrease post‐interventional abdominal discomfort in deeply sedated patients: a prospective, randomized, double‐blinded, controlled trial. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016; 31: 808–13.
    1. Nishizawa T, Banno S, Kinoshita S et al Feasibility of endoscopic mucosa‐submucosa clip closure method (with video). Endosc. Int. Open. 2018; 6: E1070–4.
    1. Corte C, Dahlenburg L, Selby W et al Hyoscine butylbromide administered at the cecum increases polyp detection: a randomized double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2012; 44: 917–22.
    1. Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch HJ et al Randomized trial of low‐volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 883–93.
    1. Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR et al Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018; 68: 250–81.
    1. James PT, Leach R, Kalamara E, Shayeghi M. The worldwide obesity epidemic. Obes. Res. 2001; 9 (Suppl. 4): 228S–33S.
    1. Khashab MA, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Rex DK. Colorectal anatomy in adults at computed tomography colonography: normal distribution and the effect of age, sex, and body mass index. Endoscopy. 2009; 41: 674–8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera