2001EndoscopyOpen access

A Prospective Controlled Trial of an Ultrathin Versus a Conventional Endoscope in Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Hugh Mulcahy, Amelia Riches, Maria X. Kiely, M.J.G. Farthing, P D Fairclough

Open full text 43 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is performed without sedation in many countries. Unsedated patients experience more discomfort during endoscopy than sedated patients, but few studies have examined factors which could be modified to minimize discomfort during the procedure. We assessed the effect of endoscope diameter on patient discomfort during unsedated transoral gastroscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 322 patients attending for unsedated endoscopy were examined using an endoscope of diameter either 6.0 mm or 9.8 mm. Patients completed a two-part questionnaire assessing tolerance of the procedure and discomfort during it. RESULTS: There was failure to complete the initial unsedated endoscopy in three of 163 patients in the 6.0 mm group and 14 of 159 in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.009). Patients in the 6.0 mm group reported less discomfort both during endoscope insertion (P < 0.0001) and during the remainder of the procedure (P < 0.0001). 14% of patients in the 6.0 mm group indicated that they would request sedation if a further endoscopy were necessary, compared with 31% in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrathin endoscopes may have a role in clinical practice if randomized comparative studies with standard-bore instruments confirm that they do not compromise diagnostic quality.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is performed without sedation in many countries. Unsedated patients experience more discomfort during endoscopy than sedated patients, but few studies have examined factors which could be modified to minimize discomfort during the procedure. We assessed the effect of endoscope diameter on patient discomfort during unsedated transoral gastroscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 322 patients attending for unsedated endoscopy were examined using an endoscope of diameter either 6.0 mm or 9.8 mm. Patients completed a two-part questionnaire assessing tolerance of the procedure and discomfort during it. RESULTS: There was failure to complete the initial unsedated endoscopy in three of 163 patients in the 6.0 mm group and 14 of 159 in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.009). Patients in the 6.0 mm group reported less discomfort both during endoscope insertion (P < 0.0001) and during the remainder of the procedure (P < 0.0001). 14% of patients in the 6.0 mm group indicated that they would request sedation if a further endoscopy were necessary, compared with 31% in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrathin endoscopes may have a role in clinical practice if randomized comparative studies with standard-bore instruments confirm that they do not compromise diagnostic quality.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 43 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is performed without sedation in many countries. Unsedated patients experience more discomfort during endoscopy than sedated patients, but few studies have examined factors which could be modified to minimize discomfort during the procedure. We assessed the effect of endoscope diameter on patient discomfort during unsedated transoral gastroscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 322 patients attending for unsedated endoscopy were examined using an endoscope of diameter either 6.0 mm or 9.8 mm. Patients completed a two-part questionnaire assessing tolerance of the procedure and discomfort during it. RESULTS: There was failure to complete the initial unsedated endoscopy in three of 163 patients in the 6.0 mm group and 14 of 159 in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.009). Patients in the 6.0 mm group reported less discomfort both during endoscope insertion (P < 0.0001) and during the remainder of the procedure (P < 0.0001). 14% of patients in the 6.0 mm group indicated that they would request sedation if a further endoscopy were necessary, compared with 31% in the 9.8 mm group (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrathin endoscopes may have a role in clinical practice if randomized comparative studies with standard-bore instruments confirm that they do not compromise diagnostic quality.

Key concepts: Medicine, Endoscope, Endoscopy, Sedation, Surgery, Randomized controlled trial, Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, Prospective cohort study

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Prospective Controlled Trial of an Ultrathin Versus a Conventional Endoscope in Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy — Research Paper | ScholarLens