LAUSR

Background Few data are available on the influence of colonoscope type on the training process and quality of colonoscopy. We conducted this prospective observational cohort study to investigate scope suitability for starting colonoscopy training, in relation to technical competence, quality indicators, and the patient’s comfort during diagnostic colonoscopy. Methods A total of 126 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study and assigned to one of 3 groups: adult colonoscope ([AC], n=41); intermediate pediatric colonoscope ([IPC], n=43); and long pediatric colonoscope ([LPC], n=42). Primary outcomes were completeness of the examination and minutes to the cecum. Secondary outcomes included patient tolerance, position change, use of abdominal compression, loop formation, kind of loop, and overall difficulty of the procedure. Results Cecal intubation rates were not statistically different between the groups: AC/87.8%; IPC/81.4%; and LPC/92.8%. Terminal ileal intubation rate differed significantly among the 3 groups (P=0.015) with LPC having the higher rate (66.7% vs. 60.9%/AC and 37.2%/IPC). There were significant differences in positional changes (fewer with LPC/1.36 vs. AC/2.15 and IPC/2.09, P=0.027) and midazolam administered doses (lower with LPC/0.52 vs. AC/1.07 and IPC/0.93, P=0.032). Loop formation with subsequent resolution was significantly associated with more pain for the patient with all of the 3 colonoscope types. Conclusions The LPC performs better in trainee hands than AC and IPC in terms of reaching competency, and quality indicators show less discomfort for the patients during colonoscopic procedures (lower midazolam dose and fewer positional changes). It could be considered the most suitable scope for starting high-quality colonoscopy training.