3.8 Article

Difference in real-time magnetic image analysis of colonic looping patterns between males and females undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy

期刊

ENDOSCOPY INTERNATIONAL OPEN
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 E575-E581

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-0574-2478

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and study aim Magnetic imaging technology is of proven benefit to trainees in colonoscopy, but few studies have examined its benefits in experienced hands. There is evidence that colonoscopy is more difficult in women. We set out to investigate (i) associations between the looping configurations in the proximal and distal colon and (ii) differences in the looping prevalence between the sexes. We have examined their significance in terms of segmental intubation times and position changes required for the completion of colonoscopy. Patients and methods We analyzed 103 consecutive synchronized luminal and magnetic image videos of diagnostic colonoscopies with normal anatomy undertaken by a single experienced operator. Results Deep transverse loops and sigmoid N-loops were more common in females. A deep transverse loop was more likely to be present if a sigmoid alpha-loop or N-loop had formed previously. Patients with sigmoid N-loops were turned more frequently from left lateral to supine before the sigmoid-descending junction was reached, but there was no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern. Conclusions This study has reexamined the prevalence of the common looping patterns encountered during colonoscopy and has identified differences between the sexes. This finding may offer an explanation as to why colonoscopy has been shown to be more difficult in females. Although a deep transverse loop following a resolved sigmoid alphaloop was the most commonly encountered pattern, no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern could be shown. It is the first study to examine segmental completion times using a magnetic imager in expert hands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据