Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic tool for colonic diseases and serves as the preferred screening method for colorectal cancer (CRC). A common difficulty during colonoscopy is the looping of the colon, which can result in patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and the need for auxiliary maneuvers. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using an abdominal binder during colonoscopy performed by trainees.

This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary center. Participants were outpatients aged 20-80 years undergoing elective colonoscopy. They were randomly assigned to either the abdominal binder (AB) group or the sham binder (SB) group. The primary outcome measured was cecal intubation time. Secondary outcomes included the need for manual abdominal compression and postural adjustments during the procedure.

A total of 211 participants were enrolled in the study. The median CIT was significantly shorter in the AB group compared to the SB group (728 s vs. 774 s, p = 0.008). Additionally, the AB group demonstrated a significantly reduced need for manual abdominal compression (p ≤ 0.001) and postural adjustments (p = 0.01). The requirement for abdominal compression decreased by 40% (95% CI 27.7-52.9%), while the need for postural changes was reduced by 9.4% (95% CI 1.9-88.7%).

The use of an abdominal binder during colonoscopy performed by trainees significantly reduced cecal intubation time and minimized the need for ancillary maneuvers, such as manual abdominal compression and postural adjustments.

Colonoscopy is a widely used endoscopic procedure to investigate diseases of the colon and rectum. Colonoscopy procedure has difficulties for the patient and endoscopist.

To investigate whether the use of an abdominal corset can make the colonoscopy procedure easier and faster.

This is a prospective randomised controlled study. Patients over 18 years of age who underwent elective colonoscopy in our clinic were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups according to the use of the corset. Variables were compared between the groups.

A total of 204 patients were included in the study. Corsets were used in 97 patients and not used in 107 patients. The need for manual compression was found to be decreased in the corset use group. There was no effect of corset use on cecal intubation time in the general population. It was found that cecal intubation time decreased with corset use in patients with body mass index - BMI<30 and male gender.

The need for manual compression can be reduced by the use of an abdominal corset during colonoscopy. The use of an abdominal corset may make the colonoscopy procedure faster and easier for the endoscopist and the patient.

Successful cecal intubation is crucial in ensuring a complete evaluation of the colonic mucosa. Although completion of colonoscopies should be successful in close to 100% of all examinations in the hands of experienced gastroenterologists, there are some patients with colons which can be difficult to navigate. Factors such as older age, presence of diverticular disease, as well as high or low body mass index can present challenges for endoscopists. Challenges can be divided into those that are left sided and are associated with severe angulations of the colon versus those that are right sided and present as redundant colons. Both require different strategies to achieve completion. This review will cover methods, technologies as well the evolution of colonoscope insertion tubes which can help in navigating colons, especially those that are challenging. There will also be a discussion about basic principles and techniques that should be employed in all colonoscopies.

Endoscopy staff suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate greater than or comparable to nurses and technicians in other subspecialities, which may be attributable to the widespread use of manual pressure and repositioning during colonoscopy. In addition to negatively impacting staff health and job performance, colonoscopy-related musculoskeletal disorder injuries may also signal potential risks to patient safety. To assess the prevalence of staff injury and perceived patient harm relating to the use of manual pressure and repositioning techniques during colonoscopy, 185 attendees of a recent national meeting of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates were asked to recall experiencing injuries to themselves or observing injuries to other staff or patients during colonoscopy. A majority of respondents (84.9%, n = 157) reported either experiencing or observing staff injury, whereas 25.9% ( n = 48) reported observing patient complications. Among respondents who perform manual repositioning and apply manual pressure during colonoscopy (57.3%, n = 106), 85.8% ( n = 91) reported experiencing musculoskeletal disorders from performing these tasks; 81.1% ( n = 150) reported no awareness of colonoscopy-specific ergonomics policies at their facility. Results highlight the relationship between the physical job requirements of endoscopy nurses and technicians, staff musculoskeletal disorders, and patient complications, and suggest that implementation of staff safety protocols may benefit patients as well as endoscopy staff.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for colorectal cancer screening. Looping occurs in 91% of cases undergoing colonoscopy and can cause patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and colon perforation. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACD) on colonoscopy outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through February 2nd, 2023. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were pooled using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI) using Revman. Our review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023397344.

We included eight RCTs with a total of 1,889 patients. ACD was effective to decrease CIT (MD: -2.15 with a 95% CI [-3.49, -0.80], p = .002), postural change (RR: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.49, 0.66], p = .00001), and VAS pain score (MD: -1.49 with 95% CI [-1.81, -1.17], p = .0001). However, there was no difference between ACD and control groups regarding manual compression (RR: 0.65 with 95% CI [0.42, 1.00], p = .05), complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.99, 1.04], p = .31), and cecal intubation length (CIL) (MD: -2.25 with 95% CI [-7.64, 3.14], p = .41).

ACD during colonoscopy may enhance patient comfort by reducing CIT, pain, and postural changes. Nevertheless, additional RCTs are necessary to validate these results and determine the most suitable approach to utilize ACD for colonoscopy.

Upskilling in ileocolonoscopy is an important aspect of pediatric endoscopic practice as it enables endoscopists to learn additional skills through education and training to improve outcomes. With the advent of technologies, endoscopy is continuously evolving. Many devices can be applied to improve endoscopy quality and ergonomics. In addition, techniques such as dynamic position change can be employed to increase procedural efficiency and completeness. Key to upskilling is enhancing endoscopists' cognitive, technical and nontechnical skills and the concept of "training the trainer" to ensure trainers have the requisite skills to teach endoscopy effectively. This chapter details aspects of upskilling pediatric ileocolonoscopy.

Optimal endoscopic operations incorporate ergonomic principles into the endoscopy environment benefiting endoscopists, endoscopy unit personnel, and patients. A high prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal injuries is well established among endoscopists and gastroenterology nurses. Ergonomics can be integrated into all facets of the endoscopy unit including scheduling, endoscopy unit design, training programs, and investment in technology. Preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure areas should aim to deliver patient safety, privacy, and comfort, while also supporting endoscopists and staff with adjustable rooms and effective work flows. Team-wide educational initiatives can improve ergonomic awareness. These strategies help mitigate risks for musculoskeletal injuries and can lead to increased productivity. The COVID-19 area brings novel challenges to endoscopy.

Prolongation of cecal intubation time (CIT) directly affects the comfort of the patient and the colonoscopist. In this study, the effectiveness of using an abdominal binder (AB) during colonoscopy on procedure time and colonoscopy outcomes was investigated.

We conducted a parallel randomized double-blind sham-device-controlled study of patients who underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy between 1 May 2020, and 31 August 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to AB (n = 173) and sham binder (SB) (n = 173) groups. The primary outcome was CIT. Secondary outcomes were the need for auxiliary maneuvers, the cecum intubation length (CIL) of the colonoscope, visual analog scale (VAS) score, narcotic analgesic dose, and colonoscopy results. Moreover, subgroup analysis was performed in terms of age and obesity indices.

A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean CIT was similar between groups (AB group 240 secs, control group 250 secs, p > .05). Manual pressure requirement was less in the AB group (27 vs. 36%, p = .069). VAS score and the need for extra narcotic analgesic drugs were prominently lower in the AB group (p < .001, p = .016, respectively). In the subgroup analyses, in participants at the age of <60 and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) ≥0.5, manual pressure requirements were significantly shorter in the AB group (p = .017, p = .032, respectively).

AB use in selected patients may be advantageous during colonoscopy because it reduces the need for analgesics and post-procedure pain, and reduces the need for auxiliary maneuvers in relatively young and obese patients.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders occur frequently among the endoscopy staff, and patient-handling duties involved with colonoscopy-applying manual pressure and repositioning patients-are particularly physically demanding. This study explored whether the use of a lower abdominal compression device (ColoWrap), previously shown to reduce the need for manual pressure and patient repositioning, would diminish the frequency of staff-reported musculoskeletal pain. A randomized, blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial was performed at the University of North Carolina Hospitals. Three hundred fifty patients had either ColoWrap or a sham device applied before colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the frequency of staff-reported musculoskeletal pain after assisting with colonoscopy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, which included procedures in which ColoWrap was removed, there was no statistical difference in the frequency of staff-reported pain in the control versus ColoWrap arm (4.6% vs. 3.4% of procedures, p = .59). However, when ColoWrap was used as directed (e.g., remained in place for the duration of the procedure), the frequency of staff-reported musculoskeletal pain was significantly reduced (4.6% vs. 0.7% of procedures, p = 0.04). Use of ColoWrap as directed was also found to be independently associated with reduced odds of staff-reported pain relative to the sham arm (OR = 0.12; 95% CI [0.02, 0.95]). When used as directed, ColoWrap reduced the frequency of musculoskeletal pain experienced related to assisting with colonoscopy and may reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders and injuries among the endoscopy staff.

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.

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.

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.

The use of a back brace support belt could be a viable approach for colonoscopy in elderly patients. (University Hospital Medical Information Network: UMIN000029361).

Background: The application of external abdominal pressure by endoscopy nurses has long been recognized to facilitate passage of the endoscope during colonoscopy. Applying sustained abdominal pressure during a colonoscopy for an obese patient is especially challenging and may result in musculoskeletal injury for the endoscopy nurse. Methods: Four experienced endoscopy nurses cared for 100 obese adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy who had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 25 kg/m². Duration of applied pressure, as well as nurse pain and fatigue were examined after they cared for 50 patients with and 50 patients without a positioning wedge. Findings: No difference in the mean fatigue score between nurses providing standard care versus those using the positing wedge was observed (mean score: 2.6 vs. 2.0, respectively); however, self-reported pain was higher for those providing standard care relative to those using the positioning wedge (mean score: 2.9 vs. 1.3, p = .0143). In 18 patients who required both the wedge and pressure, these nurses still reported lower pain scores relative to nurses who provided care without a wedge (M = 1.3 vs. 2.9, respectively). Conclusion/Application to practice: A positioning wedge for obese patients undergoing a colonoscopy can reduce the need for external abdominal pressure applied by endoscopy nurses. Occupational health nurses should endorse the use of a gel wedge to promote safe patient handling and reduce the potential for musculoskeletal injury among endoscopy nurses.

: Background and Aim: The efficacy of encircling abdominal compression devices in colonoscopies is inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which encircling abdominal compression devices were compared with control in colonoscopies.

We systematically searched RCTs published in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database. The data from the eligible RCTs were combined using the random-effects model. The weighted mean differences (WMDs), pooled odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Five RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to the control group, encircling abdominal compression devices significantly reduced the caecal intubation time (WMD: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.23, p = 0.02). Compared to the control group, encircling abdominal compression devices significantly decreased the frequency of postural change (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.41, p < 0.00001). Compared to the control group, the use of encircling abdominal compression devices significantly reduced the need for abdominal compression (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.70, p = 0.003).

Encircling abdominal compression devices in colonoscopies was found to reduce the caecal intubation time and the frequency of abdominal compression.

Colonoscopy insertion is painful for some patients and is one of the main barriers to screening colonoscopy. Few studies have assessed the impact of the supine position (SP) on colonoscopy insertion, especially for unsedated patients. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to clarify this issue.

Unsedated patients were randomized to SP or left horizontal position (LHP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT), and the secondary outcome measures were descending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of patients, difficulty score according to the endoscopist, and patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

A total of 347 patients were randomized to the SP group (175) or the LHP group (172). The CIT in the SP group was significantly shorter than that in the LHP group (275.0 seconds [interquartile range (IQR), 234.0-328.5 seconds] versus 316.0 seconds [IQR, 261.0-370.0 seconds], P < .001). The DIT was also shorter in the SP group (64.5 seconds [IQR, 52.0-86.3 seconds] versus 74.0 seconds [IQR, 62.0-92.0 seconds], P = .001). Compared with the LHP, the SP had a lower pain score (3.3 versus 3.9, P = .002), a lower difficulty score (3.1 versus 3.7, P < .001), a lower frequency of position change (7.1% versus 38.0%, P < .001), and less need for abdominal compression (39.1% versus 45.5%, P = .02). SP was the only modifiable and independent factor identified to reduce CIT and pain score and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

As an economical and convenient method, SP can reduce CIT, ease pain, and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03289442.).

Data have emerged supporting the right-lateral starting position in reducing time to cecum and improving patient comfort for minimally sedated colonoscopy. We aimed to test whether prone starting position results in similar advantages in procedure time and patient tolerability in comparison to traditional left-sided starting position.

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which patients were randomized to begin in either the prone or left-lateral (LL) position. A total of 181 adult patients undergoing scheduled colonoscopy were stratified by age, gender, body mass index, and experience of the endoscopist. Patients were then randomized 1:1 in permuted blocks. The primary outcome measure was time to cecal intubation and secondary outcome measures included patient comfort that was measured by visual analog scale.

There was no benefit from prone starting positioning over conventional left-sided starting positioning. Further, prone starting position led to an increase in time to reach cecum (701 vs. 511 s; P=0.01). This could be in part explained by an increased time to reach transverse colon in patients positioned prone (332 vs. 258 s; P=0.06). Comfort levels were similar between patients positioned prone and LL (4 vs. 4 visual analog scale; P=0.6) although endoscopists found colonoscopies in which patients started prone more technically challenging than if started LL (5 vs. 4; P=0.002).

Prone starting position did not improve time to reach cecum or patient comfort for minimally sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02305706.

Various methods have been reported as aids to cecal intubation. This study aimed to prospectively investigate whether an abdominal obstetric binder (AOB) used during pregnancy and attached to the patients' abdomen during colonoscopy could facilitate effective colonoscopic insertion.

This was a prospective study of 451 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist. The recruited patients were randomly separated into two groups that received colonoscopy either with (Group A) or without an AOB attached (Group B). The cecal intubation time, cecal intubation length of the colonoscope, use of manual pressure, position change of each patient, and the number of patients with abdominal distension were collected for comparison.

A total of 451 patients (224 in Group A and 227 in Group B) were ultimately included in this study. In Group A, cecal intubation time and cecal intubation length of colonoscope (CIL) were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). The patients had significantly fewer position changes and manual pressure in Group A (P < 0.001). Significantly less abdominal distension was reported by patients in Group A (P < 0.001).

During colonoscopy, the application of an AOB provided a significantly faster and more effective colonoscope insertion.

In this narrative review, invited by the Editors of Gastroenterology, we summarize recent advances in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We have chosen articles published primarily in the past 2-3 years. Although a thorough literature review was performed for each topic, the nature of the article is subjective and systematic and is based on the authors' experience and expertise regarding articles we believed were most likely to be of high clinical and scientific importance.