Okamoto Makoto, Kawabe Takao, Kato Jun, Yamaji Yutaka, Ikenoue Tsuneo, Omata Masao
Department of Gastroenterology, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;39(8):679-83. doi: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000173859.31348.67.
The pediatric colonoscope is superior to the standard colonoscope in some patients with a fixed, angulated colon. A colonoscope thinner than the pediatric one is thought to outperform even the pediatric colonoscope in such cases. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of an ultrathin colonoscope, 9.8 mm in diameter, comparing it with pediatric and standard colonoscopes.
Three types of colonoscopes were used: ultrathin, pediatric, and standard. A total of 287 consecutive patients were assigned to three groups: ultrathin (n=94), pediatric (n=98), and standard (n=95). First assessment was the ratio of cecal intubation and the reasons for unsuccessful colonoscopy. The second was the time to cecal intubation.
Cecal intubation rates were not different among three groups (96% in each). The main reasons for failed colonoscopy were looping in the ultrathin group, and angulation or stricture in the pediatric and standard groups. Mean time to the cecum was slightly longer in the ultrathin group (6.5 minutes) than the pediatric group (5.6 minutes) and standard group (6.1 minutes), but there were no significant differences among three groups.
Colonoscopy with the ultrathin colonoscope was as successful as with the pediatric and standard colonoscopes. The advantage of the ultrathin colonoscope might be notable in cases with stricture or severe angulation.
在一些结肠固定且成角的患者中，小儿结肠镜优于标准结肠镜。人们认为，在这种情况下，一种比小儿结肠镜更细的结肠镜甚至会比小儿结肠镜表现更好。本研究旨在评估直径为9.8毫米的超薄结肠镜的疗效，并将其与小儿结肠镜和标准结肠镜进行比较。
使用了三种类型的结肠镜：超薄型、小儿型和标准型。共有287例连续患者被分为三组：超薄型（n = 94）、小儿型（n = 98）和标准型（n = 95）。首次评估是盲肠插管率及结肠镜检查未成功的原因。第二次评估是到达盲肠的时间。
三组的盲肠插管率无差异（每组均为96%）。结肠镜检查失败的主要原因在超薄型组是肠襻形成，在小儿型和标准型组是成角或狭窄。超薄型组到达盲肠的平均时间（6.5分钟）略长于小儿型组（5.6分钟）和标准型组（6.1分钟），但三组之间无显著差异。
使用超薄结肠镜进行结肠镜检查与使用小儿结肠镜和标准结肠镜一样成功。超薄结肠镜的优势在存在狭窄或严重成角的病例中可能尤为显著。
