Meta-analysis of the performance of ultrathin vs. standard colonoscopes

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy should reliably intubate the cecum with minimal patient discomfort and without complications. Use of thinner endoscopes to overcome pain during the procedure has shown promise. However, the use of thinner scopes could lead to excess looping and difficulty with therapeutic procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the performance of ultrathin colonoscopes (UTC) and standard colonoscopes for routine colonoscopy.

Patients and methods We searched several electronic databases for all randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized (prospective) studies that compared the efficacies of UTC (diameter ≤ 9.8 mm) and standard colonoscopes. We used fixed effect or random effects models to compare cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, pain score, and polyp and adenoma detection rates using standard mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).

Results Seven studies (2191 patients) met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies except for pain scores. The cecal intubation rate was higher with UTC (OR 2.30; 95 %CI 1.31 to 4.03). There was no difference in the cecal intubation time between UTC and standard colonoscopes. Pain scores were significantly lower with UTC than with standard colonoscopes (SMD – 0.59, 95 %CI – 0.93 to – 0.25). Polyp and adenoma detection rates were similar for both types of colonoscope.

Conclusion Use of UTC appears to improve the cecal intubation rate and reduce abdominal pain but does not affect polyp detection. Future trials are needed to evaluate the therapeutic performance of UTC vs. standard colonoscopes.

• References

• 1 Sato K, Ito S, Shigiyama F. et al. A prospective randomized study on the benefits of a new small-caliber colonoscope. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 746-753
• 2 Leung FW, Amato A, Ell C. et al. Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 657-666
• 3 Ogawa T, Ohda Y, Nagase K. et al. Evaluation of discomfort during colonoscopy with conventional and ultrathin colonoscopes in ulcerative colitis patients. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 99-105
• 4 Wagh MS. Ultrathin-caliber colonoscopy: is thin truly in?. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 491-493
• 5 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
• 6 Park CH, Lee WS, Joo YE. et al. Sedation-free colonoscopy using an upper endoscope is tolerable and effective in patients with low body mass index: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 2504-2510
• 7 Wehrmann T, Lechowicz I, Martchenko K. et al. Routine colonoscopy with a standard gastroscope. A randomized comparative trial in a western population. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 443-446
• 8 Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM. et al. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 888-894
• 9 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269
• 10 Wells GS, Shea B, O’Connell D. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (Accessed: 13 July 2016)
• 11 Nemoto D, Utano K, Endo S. et al. Tu1551 Ultra-thin versus pediatric instruments for colonoscopy in older female patients: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: AB582
• 12 Garborg KK, Loberg M, Matre J. et al. Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 740-746
• 13 Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK. et al. A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 484-490
• 14 Töx U, Schumacher B, Toermer T. et al. Propofol sedation for colonoscopy with a new ultrathin or a standard endoscope: a prospective randomized controlled study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 439-444
• 15 Okamoto M, Kawabe T, Kato J. et al. Ultrathin colonoscope with a diameter of 9.8 mm for total colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 679-683
• 16 Saunders BP, Fukumoto M, Halligan S. et al. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 124-126
• 17 Khalid-deBakker CA, Jonkers DM, Hameeteman W. et al. Cardiopulmonary events during primary colonoscopy screening in an average risk population. Neth J Med 2011; 69: 186-191