Factors related to the effectiveness of variable stiffness colonoscope: results of a multivariate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various studies and two meta-analysis have shown that a variable stiffness colonoscope improves cecal intubation rate. However, there are few studies on how this colonoscope should be used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the advancement of the colonoscope when the variable stiffness function is activated. METHODS: Prospective study enrolling consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy. The variable stiffness colonoscope (Olympus CF-H180DI/L®) was used. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with the success of the variable stiffness function. RESULTS: After the data inclusion period, 260 patients were analyzed. The variable stiffness function was used most in the proximal colon segments (ascending and transverse colon 85%; descending/sigmoid colon 15.2%). The body mass index was lower in patients in whom the endoscope advanced after activating the variable stiffness than those in which it could not be advanced (25.9 + or - 4.8 vs. 28.3 + or - 5.4 kg/m2, p = 0.009). The endoscope advanced less frequently when the stiffness function was activated in the ascending colon versus activation in other segments of the colon (25% vs. 64.5% ascending colon vs. other segments; p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, only the colon segment in which the variable stiffness was activated was an independent predictor of advancement of the colonoscope. CONCLUSIONS: The variable stiffness function is effective, allowing the colonoscope advancement especially when applied in the transverse colon, descending colon and sigmoid. However, when used in the ascending colon it has a lower effectiveness.

Does the use of a variable stiffness colonoscope offer advantages during colonoscopy under deep sedation? Results of a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Variable stiffness colonoscope may be useful in performing colonoscopies in nonsedated patients or under endoscopist-controlled sedation. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether this instrument facilitates colonoscopy in patients under deep sedation monitored by an anaesthesiologist. METHODS: Prospective and randomized study enroling consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy under deep sedation monitored by an anaesthesiologist. In group I, a variable stiffness colonoscope was used, whereas in group II, a standard colonoscope was used. The main variable was the need to change the position of the patient during the endoscopy. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in group I (variable stiffness colonoscope) and 54 in group II (standard colonoscope). The caecum was reached in 92.9% of patients in group I and in 90.7% of group II (P=0.7). The time required to reach the caecum was significantly less in group I (6.14±3.5 vs. 7.7±3.8; P=0.035). The variable stiffness colonoscope was effective in 66.7% of cases. Changing the position of the patient was necessary in 12.5% of cases in group I compared with 33.3% of cases in group II (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: The variable stiffness colonoscope avoids the need to change the patient's position and reduces caecal intubation time in patients undergoing colonoscopy under deep sedation controlled by an anaesthesiologist.