Significance of colonoscope length in cecal insertion time

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 503-508

  Lee, Hang Lak ^a   Eun, Chang Soo ^a   Lee, Oh Young ^a   Jeon, Yong Cheol ^a   Han, Dong Soo ^a   Sohn, Ju Hyun ^a   Yoon, Byung Chul ^a   Choi, Ho Soon ^a   Hahm, Joon Soo ^a   Lee, Min Ho ^a   Lee, Dong Hoo ^a   Moon, Won ^a   Kim, Sang Yeon ^a  

^a Hanyang University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BODY FAT; BODY MASS; CECUM; COLONOSCOPE; COLONOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

CECUM; COLONOSCOPES; COLONOSCOPY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 60149089155     PISSN: 00165107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bernstein C., Thorn M., Monsees K., et al. A prospective study of factors that determine cecal intubation time at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 61 (2005) 72-75
2. Kim W.H., Cho Y.J., Park J.Y., et al. Factors affecting insertion time and patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 52 (2000) 600-605
3. Bowles C.J.A., Leicester R., Romaya C., et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 53 (2004) 277-283
4. Prajapati D.N., Saeian K., Binion D.G., et al. Volume and yield of screening colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center after change in Medicare reimbursement. Am J Gastroenterol 98 (2003) 194-199
5. Harewood G.C., and Lieberman D.A. Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of Medicare coverage for average-risk screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2 (2004) 72-77
6. Rex D.K., Johnson D.A., Lieberman D.A., et al. Colorectal cancer between 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 95 (2000) 868-877
7. Barclay R.L., Vicari J.J., Doughty A.S., et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 355 (2006) 2533-2541
8. Williams B., and Cotton P.B. Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: colonoscopy (1980), Blackwell Scientific, London
9. Barthel J., Hinojosa T., and Shah N. Colonoscope length and procedure efficiency. J Clin Gastroenterol 21 (1995) 30-32
10. Fennetry M.B., Earnest D.L., Hudson P.B., et al. Physiologic changes during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 36 (1990) 22-25
11. Sakai Y. Technique of colonoscopy. In: Sivak M.V. (Ed). Gastroenterologic endoscopy (1987), WB Saunders, Philadelphia
12. Dickey W., and Garrett D. Colonoscope length and procedure efficiency. Am J Gastroenterol 97 (2002) 79-82
13. Anderson J.C., Gonzalez J.D., Messina C.R., et al. Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 95 (2000) 2784-2787
14. Krotkiewski M., Bjorntorp P., Sjostrom L., et al. Impact of obesity on metabolism in men and women. J Clin Invest 72 (1983) 1150-1162
15. Saunders B.P., Fukumoto M., Halligan S., et al. Why is colonoscopy more difficult in women?. Gastrointest Endosc 37 (1991) 152-154
16. Lee S.K., Kim T.I., Shin S.J., et al. Impact of prior abdominal or pelvic surgeon on colonoscopy outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol 40 (2006) 711-716