Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(08): E1112-E1117
DOI: 10.1055/a-1869-2541
Original article

Prospective evaluation of the motorized spiral enteroscope for previous incomplete colonoscopy

Abdulbaqi Al-Toma
1   Department of Gastroenterology and hepatology, St. Antonius hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
,
Dorien M. Oude Hergelink
2   Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
,
Jacco Tenthof van Noorden
1   Department of Gastroenterology and hepatology, St. Antonius hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
,
Jan Jacob Koornstra
2   Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04895254. Prospective multicenter study at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims A significant percentage of colonoscopies remain incomplete because of failure to intubate the cecum. The motorized spiral enteroscope (MSE) technique, originally developed for deep small bowel enteroscopy, may be an effective alternative technique in cases of incomplete examination of abnormally long colons (dolichocolon). We prospectively evaluated the success rate of cecal intubation, safety and the therapeutic consequences of using MSE after incomplete conventional colonoscopy.

Patients and methods A total of 36 consecutive patients with an indication for diagnostic and/or therapeutic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in this multicenter trial. All patients had undergone at least one incomplete colonoscopy attributed to abnormally long colons. Patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to stenosis were excluded.

Results Twenty-two men and 14 women (median age 66 years, range 35–82) were enrolled. Median procedure time was 30 minutes (range 16–50). Cecal intubation rate was 100 % and median cecal intubation time was 10 minutes (range 4–30). Abnormalities, mostly neoplastic lesions, were detected in 23 of 36 patients, corresponding to a diagnostic yield of 64 %. All these findings were in the right side of the colon and had not been described by the antecedent incomplete coloscopy. No adverse events occurred.

Conclusions In case of a difficult and long colon, MSE is safe and effective for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. It may provide an attractive solution to accomplish completeness of previous incomplete colonoscopies in these patients.



Publication History

Received: 25 April 2022

Accepted after revision: 30 May 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
03 June 2022

Article published online:
15 August 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Comment to this article:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2022; 54(09): 922-922
DOI: 10.1055/a-1850-7727

 

  • References

  • 1 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R. et al. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 2297-2303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Loffeld RJLF, Van Der Putten ABMM. The completion rate of colonoscopy in normal daily practice: factors associated with failure. Digestion 2009; 80: 267-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR. et al. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2784-2787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rex DK. Achieving cecal intubation in the very difficult colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 938-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Neerincx M, Terhaar Sive Droste JS. et al. Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 730-735
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Keswani RN. Single-balloon colonoscopy versus repeat standard colonoscopy for previous incomplete colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 507-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rex DK, Chen SC, Overhiser AJ. Colonoscopy technique in consecutive patients referred for prior incomplete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 879-883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marshall JB. Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 675-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Paonessa NJ, Rosen L, Stasik JJ. Using the gastroscope for incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 851-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shumaker DA, Zaman A, Katon RM. Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope allows completion of colonoscopy after failure with the standard adult colonoscope. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 711-714
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lichtenstein GR, Park PD, Long WB. et al. Use of a push enteroscope improves ability to perform total colonoscopy in previously unsuccessful attempts at colonoscopy in adult patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 187-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Suzuki T, Matsushima M, Tsukune Y. et al. Double-balloon endoscopy versus magnet-imaging enhanced colonoscopy for difficult colonoscopies, a randomized study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 38-42
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R, Friedland S. Use of a double balloon enteroscope facilitates caecal intubation after incomplete colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope. Dig Liver Dis 2006; 38: 921-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pasha SF, Harrison ME, Das A. et al. Utility of double-balloon colonoscopy for completion of colon examination after incomplete colonoscopy with conventional colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 848-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moreels TG, MacKen EJ, Roth B. et al. Cecal intubation rate with the double-balloon endoscope after incomplete conventional colonoscopy: a study in 45 patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25: 80-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hotta K, Katsuki S, Ohata K. et al. A multicenter, prospective trial of total colonoscopy using a short double-balloon endoscope in patients with previous incomplete colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 813-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Teshima CW, Aktas H, Haringsma J. et al. Single-balloon-assisted colonoscopy in patients with previously failed colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1319-1323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dzeletovic I, Harrison ME, Pasha SF. et al. Comparison of single- versus double-balloon assisted-colonoscopy for colon examination after previous incomplete standard colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 2680-2686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Becx MCMC, Al-Toma A. Double-balloon endoscopy: An effective rescue procedure after incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 519-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Robertson AR, Anastasios K, Yung DE. et al. Balloon-asisted colonoscopy after incomplete conventional colonoscopy-experience from two european centres with a comprehensive review of the literature. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schembre DB, Ross AS, Gluck MN. et al. Spiral overtube-assisted colonoscopy after incomplete colonoscopy in the redundant colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 515-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Beyna T, Schneider M, Pullmann D. et al. Motorized spiral colonoscopy: A first single-center feasibility trial. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 518-523
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Al-Toma A, Beaumont H, Koornstra JJ. et al. Motorized spiral enteroscopy: Multicenter prospective study on performance and safety including in patients with surgically-altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Endoscopy February 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1783-4802.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Beyna T, Arvanitakis M, Schneider M. et al. Motorised spiral enteroscopy: First prospective clinical feasibility study. Gut 2021; 70: 261-267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ramchandani M, Rughwani H, Inavolu P. et al. Diagnostic yield and therapeutic impact of novel motorized spiral enteroscopy in small-bowel disorders: a single-center, real-world experience from a tertiary care hospital (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 616-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tan M, Lahiff C, Bassett P. et al. Efficacy of balloon overtube-assisted colonoscopy in patients with incomplete or previous difficult colonoscopies: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1628-1630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar