Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jun;14(6):850-857.e3.
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.039. Epub 2016 Jan 6.

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

Seth D Crockett  1 , Holly O Cirri  2 , Renuka Kelapure  2 , Joseph A Galanko  2 , Christopher F Martin  2 , Evan S Dellon  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Use of an Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

Seth D Crockett et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Background & aims: Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes.

Methods: We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March 2014. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups that received either ColoWrap (n = 175) or a sham device (control, n = 175) during colonoscopy. Colonoscopists and staff were blinded to the application. The primary outcome was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included use of manual pressure and position change.

Results: The mean CIT was similar for the control and ColoWrap groups (6.69 vs 6.67 minutes; P = .98). There were no statistical differences in the frequency of manual pressure (45% for controls vs 37% for ColoWrap group, P = .13) or position changes (4% for controls vs 2% for ColoWrap group, P = .36). Among patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2) (n = 78), CIT was significantly lower for patients in the ColoWrap group (4.69 minutes) than controls (6.10 minutes) (P = .03). Adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusions: In patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, application of an external abdominal compression device did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. A possible benefit was observed in patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2), but further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02025504.

Keywords: Abdominal Binder; BMI; Difficult; Nursing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart showing flow of participants through trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker plots of cecal intubation time for ColoWrap and sham arms overall for intention to treat analysis (A), for participants with class I–II obesity (B), and per-protocol analysis (C).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker plots of cecal intubation time for ColoWrap and sham arms overall for intention to treat analysis (A), for participants with class I–II obesity (B), and per-protocol analysis (C).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker plots of cecal intubation time for ColoWrap and sham arms overall for intention to treat analysis (A), for participants with class I–II obesity (B), and per-protocol analysis (C).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Davila RE, Rajan E, Baron TH, et al. ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:546–57. - PubMed
    1. Dominic OG, McGarrity T, Dignan M, et al. American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2626–7. author reply 2628–9. - PubMed
    1. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–7. - PubMed
    1. Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179–87. e1–3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Turenhout ST, Terhaar sive Droste JS, Meijer GA, et al. Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nation wide survey on endoscopic supply and demand. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:46. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data