Chang K J, Erickson R A, Schandler S, Coye T, Moody C
Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, California 90822.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1991 Jul-Aug;37(4):444-8. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(91)70777-3.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of a new pulsed irrigation system to colonic lavage for colonoscopic preparation. Thirty-four prospective patients scheduled for routine colonoscopy were randomized to one of two preparations: a per-rectal pulsed irrigation device (18 patients) versus per-oral colonic lavage (15 patients). Colonoscopic preparation was assessed on a 0 to 4 plus scale by region and overall. This was done live and by video tape by two independent endoscopists who were blinded to the patient's preparation. There was no significant difference with respect to cleanliness of the colon with pulsed irrigation patients having an average overall preparation score of 3.00 +/- 0.19 (SEM) versus colonic lavage patients with a score of 3.14 +/- 0.19. There was also no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to demographics, time to reach the cecum, time for entire procedure, volume of aspiration or wash, or sedation given. We conclude that the new pulsed irrigation device provides an alternative to the standard per-oral lavage solution for colonoscopic preparation.
本研究的目的是比较一种新型脉冲冲洗系统与结肠灌洗用于结肠镜检查准备的疗效和患者耐受性。34名计划进行常规结肠镜检查的前瞻性患者被随机分为两种准备方式之一：经直肠脉冲冲洗装置（18例患者）与经口结肠灌洗（15例患者）。由两名对患者准备方式不知情的独立内镜医师通过现场及录像，按0至4加的量表对结肠镜检查准备情况按区域及整体进行评估。脉冲冲洗组患者结肠清洁度与结肠灌洗组相比无显著差异，脉冲冲洗组患者的整体准备平均评分为3.00±0.19（标准误），结肠灌洗组评分为3.14±0.19。两组在人口统计学特征、到达盲肠的时间、整个操作的时间、吸出或冲洗的量或给予的镇静方面也无统计学显著差异。我们得出结论，新型脉冲冲洗装置为结肠镜检查准备提供了一种替代标准经口灌洗溶液的方法。
