Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy

AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013-02, Vol.5 (2), p.62-66
Hauptverfasser: Chernolesskiy, Alexey, Swain, David, Lee, James C, Corbett, Gareth D, Cameron, Ewen Ab
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 66
container_issue 2
container_start_page 62
container_title World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 5
creator Chernolesskiy, Alexey
Swain, David
Lee, James C
Corbett, Gareth D
Cameron, Ewen Ab
description AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist.PHL used white-light endoscopy(WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement(i-scan 1) on withdrawal,and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal.Patient age,sex,instrument insertion and withdrawal times,nurse assessed patient comfort scores,midazolam and fentanyl doses,procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group.Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test(for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test(for ordinal and continuous variables).RESULTS:Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups:413/425(97.2%) for OL and 55/58(94.9%) for PHL(P = 0.24).For complete colonoscopies,the two groups were well matched for age,sex,colonoscope insertion times(mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL,P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times(mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL,P = 0.2).Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort(mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group,P < 0.0001).While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups(mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL,P = 0.13),slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group(mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL,P = 0.035).There was no difference in polyp(58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma(49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups.Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas,nor the characteristics of these(including size,location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.
doi_str_mv 10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.62
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3574614</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>1003030079</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>1291610459</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6cc960b3fd5f7eb234cb42e9c0e291dcac5e13b081098f8f818141427eb0ede3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkctLxDAQh4MoKurRqwS8eOmaZx8XQRZfsLAevIc0na6RNqlJu7r_vRFXWTOHBPLxzY8ZhM4pmQkm-fXH2wpmazmzbJazPXRMK1FmklZkf-d9hM5ifCPpCFEQWhyiI8YFE7Rkx2g59_2gg43eYd_iZ3Cj_sSPdmEdYO0avOw2_TBFvJgMBI3jJo7QR6xHHE0AcNatsPGddz4aP2xO0UGruwhn2_sEvdzfvcwfs8Xy4Wl-u8gMF3LMcmOqnNS8bWRbQJ3ymFowqAwBVtHGaCOB8pqUlFRlm4qWVFDBEkugAX6Cbn60w1T30JgUO-hODcH2OmyU11b9_3H2Va38WnFZiJyKJLjaCoJ_nyCOqrfRQNdpB36KiqYYOSVCVgnNflATfIwB2r82lKjvNajvNai1VJapnCX-YjfbH_079ARcboWv3q3e0wR3jISnIkXFvwD3EZIL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1291610459</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy</title><source>Baishideng "World Journal of" online journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Chernolesskiy, Alexey ; Swain, David ; Lee, James C ; Corbett, Gareth D ; Cameron, Ewen Ab</creator><creatorcontrib>Chernolesskiy, Alexey ; Swain, David ; Lee, James C ; Corbett, Gareth D ; Cameron, Ewen Ab</creatorcontrib><description>AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist.PHL used white-light endoscopy(WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement(i-scan 1) on withdrawal,and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal.Patient age,sex,instrument insertion and withdrawal times,nurse assessed patient comfort scores,midazolam and fentanyl doses,procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group.Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test(for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test(for ordinal and continuous variables).RESULTS:Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups:413/425(97.2%) for OL and 55/58(94.9%) for PHL(P = 0.24).For complete colonoscopies,the two groups were well matched for age,sex,colonoscope insertion times(mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL,P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times(mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL,P = 0.2).Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort(mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group,P &amp;lt; 0.0001).While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups(mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL,P = 0.13),slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group(mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL,P = 0.035).There was no difference in polyp(58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma(49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups.Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas,nor the characteristics of these(including size,location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1948-5190</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1948-5190</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.62</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23424182</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited</publisher><subject>Adenoma ; Brief ; Colonoscopy ; HiLine ; i-scan ; Pentax ; Polyp</subject><ispartof>World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2013-02, Vol.5 (2), p.62-66</ispartof><rights>2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved. 2013</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6cc960b3fd5f7eb234cb42e9c0e291dcac5e13b081098f8f818141427eb0ede3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6cc960b3fd5f7eb234cb42e9c0e291dcac5e13b081098f8f818141427eb0ede3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/71419X/71419X.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574614/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574614/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,886,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23424182$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chernolesskiy, Alexey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, James C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corbett, Gareth D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Ewen Ab</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy</title><title>World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</addtitle><description>AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist.PHL used white-light endoscopy(WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement(i-scan 1) on withdrawal,and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal.Patient age,sex,instrument insertion and withdrawal times,nurse assessed patient comfort scores,midazolam and fentanyl doses,procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group.Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test(for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test(for ordinal and continuous variables).RESULTS:Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups:413/425(97.2%) for OL and 55/58(94.9%) for PHL(P = 0.24).For complete colonoscopies,the two groups were well matched for age,sex,colonoscope insertion times(mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL,P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times(mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL,P = 0.2).Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort(mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group,P &amp;lt; 0.0001).While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups(mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL,P = 0.13),slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group(mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL,P = 0.035).There was no difference in polyp(58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma(49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups.Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas,nor the characteristics of these(including size,location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.</description><subject>Adenoma</subject><subject>Brief</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>HiLine</subject><subject>i-scan</subject><subject>Pentax</subject><subject>Polyp</subject><issn>1948-5190</issn><issn>1948-5190</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkctLxDAQh4MoKurRqwS8eOmaZx8XQRZfsLAevIc0na6RNqlJu7r_vRFXWTOHBPLxzY8ZhM4pmQkm-fXH2wpmazmzbJazPXRMK1FmklZkf-d9hM5ifCPpCFEQWhyiI8YFE7Rkx2g59_2gg43eYd_iZ3Cj_sSPdmEdYO0avOw2_TBFvJgMBI3jJo7QR6xHHE0AcNatsPGddz4aP2xO0UGruwhn2_sEvdzfvcwfs8Xy4Wl-u8gMF3LMcmOqnNS8bWRbQJ3ymFowqAwBVtHGaCOB8pqUlFRlm4qWVFDBEkugAX6Cbn60w1T30JgUO-hODcH2OmyU11b9_3H2Va38WnFZiJyKJLjaCoJ_nyCOqrfRQNdpB36KiqYYOSVCVgnNflATfIwB2r82lKjvNajvNai1VJapnCX-YjfbH_079ARcboWv3q3e0wR3jISnIkXFvwD3EZIL</recordid><startdate>20130216</startdate><enddate>20130216</enddate><creator>Chernolesskiy, Alexey</creator><creator>Swain, David</creator><creator>Lee, James C</creator><creator>Corbett, Gareth D</creator><creator>Cameron, Ewen Ab</creator><general>Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>W91</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130216</creationdate><title>Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy</title><author>Chernolesskiy, Alexey ; Swain, David ; Lee, James C ; Corbett, Gareth D ; Cameron, Ewen Ab</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-6cc960b3fd5f7eb234cb42e9c0e291dcac5e13b081098f8f818141427eb0ede3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adenoma</topic><topic>Brief</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>HiLine</topic><topic>i-scan</topic><topic>Pentax</topic><topic>Polyp</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chernolesskiy, Alexey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swain, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, James C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corbett, Gareth D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cameron, Ewen Ab</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-医药卫生</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chernolesskiy, Alexey</au><au>Swain, David</au><au>Lee, James C</au><au>Corbett, Gareth D</au><au>Cameron, Ewen Ab</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy</atitle><jtitle>World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</addtitle><date>2013-02-16</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>62</spage><epage>66</epage><pages>62-66</pages><issn>1948-5190</issn><eissn>1948-5190</eissn><abstract>AIM:To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine(PHL)(with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera(OL) systems in a screening population.METHODS:Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL(n = 58) and OL(n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed.All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist.PHL used white-light endoscopy(WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement(i-scan 1) on withdrawal,and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal.Patient age,sex,instrument insertion and withdrawal times,nurse assessed patient comfort scores,midazolam and fentanyl doses,procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group.Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test(for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test(for ordinal and continuous variables).RESULTS:Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups:413/425(97.2%) for OL and 55/58(94.9%) for PHL(P = 0.24).For complete colonoscopies,the two groups were well matched for age,sex,colonoscope insertion times(mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL,P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times(mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL,P = 0.2).Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort(mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group,P &amp;lt; 0.0001).While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups(mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL,P = 0.13),slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group(mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL,P = 0.035).There was no difference in polyp(58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma(49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups.Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas,nor the characteristics of these(including size,location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.CONCLUSION:This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited</pub><pmid>23424182</pmid><doi>10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.62</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1948-5190
ispartof World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2013-02, Vol.5 (2), p.62-66
issn 1948-5190
1948-5190
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3574614
source Baishideng "World Journal of" online journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adenoma
Brief
Colonoscopy
HiLine
i-scan
Pentax
Polyp
title Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T10%3A43%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Pentax%20HiLine%20and%20Olympus%20Lucera%20systems%20at%20screening%20colonoscopy&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Chernolesskiy,%20Alexey&rft.date=2013-02-16&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=62&rft.epage=66&rft.pages=62-66&rft.issn=1948-5190&rft.eissn=1948-5190&rft_id=info:doi/10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.62&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1291610459%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1291610459&rft_id=info:pmid/23424182&rft_cqvip_id=1003030079&rfr_iscdi=true