Cargando…

Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Looping is a major problem in colonoscopy, and it prolongs procedure time. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external abdominal compression device (back brace support belt; Maxbelt) with respect to cecal insertion time and other outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Toyoshima, Osamu, Nishizawa, Toshihiro, Sakitani, Kosuke, Yamakawa, Tadahiro, Yoshida, Shuntaro, Fukagawa, Kazushi, Hata, Keisuke, Ishihara, Soichiro, Suzuki, Hidekazu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273705/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514451
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12276
_version_ 1783542458025508864
author Toyoshima, Osamu
Nishizawa, Toshihiro
Sakitani, Kosuke
Yamakawa, Tadahiro
Yoshida, Shuntaro
Fukagawa, Kazushi
Hata, Keisuke
Ishihara, Soichiro
Suzuki, Hidekazu
author_facet Toyoshima, Osamu
Nishizawa, Toshihiro
Sakitani, Kosuke
Yamakawa, Tadahiro
Yoshida, Shuntaro
Fukagawa, Kazushi
Hata, Keisuke
Ishihara, Soichiro
Suzuki, Hidekazu
author_sort Toyoshima, Osamu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: Looping is a major problem in colonoscopy, and it prolongs procedure time. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external abdominal compression device (back brace support belt; Maxbelt) with respect to cecal insertion time and other outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective study on outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy in Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups and were subjected to either Maxbelt (n = 39) or no device (control, n = 38) during colonoscopy. The colonoscopist was blinded to the study. The primary outcome that was observed was insertion time. RESULTS: The intubation time of the Maxbelt group was shorter than that of the no device group, but the difference was not significant (3.29 vs 4.49 min, P = 0.069). After stratifying by age, the use of Maxbelt significantly decreased cecal intubation time in elderly participants (age ≥ 45) compared to no device group (3.27 vs 5.00 min, P = 0.032). The use of the Maxbelt significantly decreased insertion difficulty encountered by the colonoscopist (P = 0.01). There was no difference in adenoma detection rate, manual pressure, position change, and adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a back brace support belt could be a viable approach for colonoscopy in elderly patients. (University Hospital Medical Information Network: UMIN000029361).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7273705
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72737052020-06-07 Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial Toyoshima, Osamu Nishizawa, Toshihiro Sakitani, Kosuke Yamakawa, Tadahiro Yoshida, Shuntaro Fukagawa, Kazushi Hata, Keisuke Ishihara, Soichiro Suzuki, Hidekazu JGH Open Original Articles BACKGROUND AND AIM: Looping is a major problem in colonoscopy, and it prolongs procedure time. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external abdominal compression device (back brace support belt; Maxbelt) with respect to cecal insertion time and other outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective study on outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy in Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups and were subjected to either Maxbelt (n = 39) or no device (control, n = 38) during colonoscopy. The colonoscopist was blinded to the study. The primary outcome that was observed was insertion time. RESULTS: The intubation time of the Maxbelt group was shorter than that of the no device group, but the difference was not significant (3.29 vs 4.49 min, P = 0.069). After stratifying by age, the use of Maxbelt significantly decreased cecal intubation time in elderly participants (age ≥ 45) compared to no device group (3.27 vs 5.00 min, P = 0.032). The use of the Maxbelt significantly decreased insertion difficulty encountered by the colonoscopist (P = 0.01). There was no difference in adenoma detection rate, manual pressure, position change, and adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a back brace support belt could be a viable approach for colonoscopy in elderly patients. (University Hospital Medical Information Network: UMIN000029361). Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2019-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7273705/ /pubmed/32514451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12276 Text en © 2019 The Authors. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Toyoshima, Osamu
Nishizawa, Toshihiro
Sakitani, Kosuke
Yamakawa, Tadahiro
Yoshida, Shuntaro
Fukagawa, Kazushi
Hata, Keisuke
Ishihara, Soichiro
Suzuki, Hidekazu
Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title_full Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title_fullStr Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title_full_unstemmed Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title_short Colonoscopy using back brace support belt: A randomized, prospective trial
title_sort colonoscopy using back brace support belt: a randomized, prospective trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273705/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32514451
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12276
work_keys_str_mv AT toyoshimaosamu colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT nishizawatoshihiro colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT sakitanikosuke colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT yamakawatadahiro colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT yoshidashuntaro colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT fukagawakazushi colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT hatakeisuke colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT ishiharasoichiro colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial
AT suzukihidekazu colonoscopyusingbackbracesupportbeltarandomizedprospectivetrial