Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 2003705

Colonoscoping the "difficult" colon.

Abstract

Despite the popularity of colonoscopy, very little has been published on specific technique. There are many factors that make colonoscopy easy or difficult, but the most important one is the endoscopist himself/herself. One must have excellent manual dexterity and technical ability; and, above all, one must perform enough cases to gain the needed experience to understand the procedure and to perform it rapidly, successfully, and safely. There are only so many maneuvers that can be carried out with a colonoscope, such as pushing it in, withdrawing it, turning it to the right, left, up, or down. Therefore, decision making (options), such as changing the position of the patient or applying external pressure points, must be performed rapidly before too many repetitive false moves are made. Options for each anatomical segment of the colon are outlined, based on an experience of ten thousand colonoscopies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W A Webb. 1991. Colonoscoping the "difficult" colon.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2003705/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Toxic megacolon.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Colon

What is the role of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND: Most surgeons use mechanical bowel preparation before performing operations on the colon and rectum. The aim of this study is to determine if there is any published literature that supports this practice. METHODS: We undertook a review of the literature on the benefits of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing surgery on the colon and rectum. A meta-analysis was conducted on all available clinical trials addressing this issue. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of three clinical trials revealed a significantly greater incidence of wound infection in patients who received a mechanical bowel preparation (10.8 vs. 7.4 percent; P < 0.002; 95 percent confidence interval of the difference, -1.6-8.4 percent). Patients who received mechanical bowel preparation had an incidence of anastomotic leakage that was twice that of control patients; however, this difference was not significant (8.1 vs. 4 percent; P < 0. 1 14; 95 percent confidence interval of the difference, -0.4-8.4 percent). CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence in the literature to support the use of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Hence, there is a need for clinical trials comparing the more traditional, aggressive forms of bowel preparation (e.g., polyethylene glycol solutions, sodium phosphate) with either no preparation or simpler techniques, such as a single phosphate enema.

Colon