Double-balloon endoscopy versus magnet-imaging enhanced colonoscopy for difficult colonoscopies, a randomized study

Background and study aims: Studies have estimated that failure of cecal intubation occurs with conventional colonoscopy in up to 10 % of cases. Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) systems, magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI), and transparent cap have been shown to improve success rates for colonoscopy. This study evaluated the utility of DBE for complete examination of the colon compared with MEI plus cap (MEI-Cap) after incomplete or technically difficult colonoscopy in a randomized comparative manner.

Patients and methods: A total of 94 patients with incomplete or technically difficult colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either DBE (n = 47) or colonoscopy with MEI–Cap (n = 47). The primary end point was cecal intubation rate within 30 minutes. Secondary end points included intubation time, pain score using a visual analog scale, abdominal pressure attempts, doses of sedative medication, and changes in patient position during colonoscopy.

Results: Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. Cecal intubation rate within 30 minutes was significantly higher for DBE (45 /47, 95.7 %) than for MEI–Cap (34 /47, 72.3 %) (P = 0.0049). Mean time to reach the cecum was significantly lower in the DBE group (13.0 ± 5.3 minutes) than in the MEI–Cap group (16.4 ± 4.8 minutes; P = 0.0003). No complications were encountered in either group. 

Conclusion: DBE is more useful for complete examination of the colon than MEI–Cap in patients with incomplete or technically difficult colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Marshall JB, Barthel JS. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 518-520
• 3 Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L et al. The impact of endoscopists’ experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation on colonoscopy completion rates. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 511-517
• 4 Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38: 964-968
• 5 Matsushima M, Suzuki T, Tokiwa K et al. Proper selection of colonoscope according to gender, age and BMI of the patient. Dig Endosc 2006; 18: 188-191
• 6 Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C et al. Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 435-440
• 7 Suzuki T, Matsushima M, Ihara K et al. Clinical significance of the use of magnetic endoscope imaging for colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2004; 16: 322-326
• 8 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Dahler S et al. Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimentional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 885-889
• 9 Lee YT, Hui AJ, Wong VWS et al. Improved colonoscopy success rate with a distally attached mucosectomy cap. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 739-742
• 10 Yamamoto H, Sekine Y, Sato Y et al. Total enteroscopy with a nonsurgical steerable double-balloon method. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 216-220
• 11 Pasha SF, Harrison E, 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
• 12 Gay G, Delvaux M. Double-balloon colonoscopy after failed conventional colonoscopy: a pilot series with a new instrument. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 788-792
• 13 May A, Nachbar I, Ell C. Push-and-pull enteroscopy using a single-balloon technique for difficult colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 395-398
• 14 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
• 15 Lee YT, Lai LH, Hui AJ et al. Efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with regular colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 41-46
• 16 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
• 17 Kozarek RA, Botoman VA, Patterson DJ. Prospective evaluation of a small caliber upper endoscope for colonoscopy after unsuccessful standard examination. Gastrointest Endosc 1989; 35: 333-335
• 18 Marshall JB. Use of a pediatric colonoscope improves the success of total colonoscopy in selected adult patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 675-678
• 19 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
• 20 Rex DK. Achieving cecal intubation in the very difficult colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 938-944
• 21 Akahoshi K, Kubokawa M, Matsumoto M et al. Double-balloon endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of GI tract diseases: methodology, indications, safety, and clinical impact. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 7654-7659
• 22 Triantafyllou K, Tsibouris P, Kalantzis C et al. PillCam Colon capsule endoscopy does not always complement incomplete colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 572-576
• 23 Teshima CW, Aktas H, Haringsma J et al. Single-balloon-assisted colonoscopy in patients with previously failed colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1319-1323