Does "responsive insertion technology" improve practice of colonoscopy? Results of a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE. During colonoscopy, advancing the endoscope can sometimes be difficult due to the appearance of loops or bends in the insertion tube. Therefore, research continues toward improving colonoscope technology. The aim of this study is to compare the use of colonoscopes equipped with "responsive insertion technology" (RIT) versus regular non-RIT colonoscopes. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Prospective, comparative and randomized trials that included patients submitted to colonoscopy. In group I, RIT colonoscopes were used, while in group II, colonoscopies with variable stiffness but without the other components of the RIT technology were used. Demographic variables and variables related to colonoscopy, as well as the pain perceived by the patient and the difficulty in performing endoscopy were recorded. RESULTS. A total of 122 patients were included in group I and 120 patients in group II. The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups. The use of the RIT colonoscopes was associated with a lower cecal intubation time (4.4 ± 2.0 vs. 5.4 ± 3.5, p = 0.005) and a lower difficulty in performing examinations for both the endoscopist (19.1 ± 20.0 vs. 27.7 ± 22.2, p = 0.002) and the nursing staff (20.8 ± 17.0 vs. 26.3 ± 19.6, p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between both groups in the need for ancillary maneuvers or in the pain perceived by the patient. CONCLUSIONS. RIT colonoscopes allow cecal intubation in a shorter time compared to variable stiffness colonoscopes, and are associated with a greater level of ease of the procedure.

Factors associated with non-attendance at outpatient endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Non-attendance at endoscopy procedures leads to wasted resources and increased costs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors associated with non-attendance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who attended the outpatient clinic for gastroscopy or colonoscopy examinations were included in the study. Patients who missed their appointment were identified and their data were collected prospectively. Patients who kept their appointment in the same period of time served as controls. RESULTS: Between August 2002 and February 2003, 1051 gastroscopies and 756 colonoscopies were scheduled. A total of 265 patients (14.7%) missed their appointment. No significant differences were found between attendees and non-attendees for mean age, gender, type of examination and day of the week on which the examination was scheduled. The time on the waiting list was longer in patients who did not keep their appointment than in those who did. Fewer appointments were missed in patients with a preferent referral, and among patients referred by their general practitioner a higher percentage failed to keep their appointment compared with those referred by a specialist. In the multivariate analysis, length of time on the waiting list and the source of referral were the only two independent predictive factors for non-attendance. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time on the waiting list and referral by a general practitioner are factors associated with patients failing to keep their endoscopy appointment.