Background: High success rate of intubation and short intubation time have been needed to endoscopists for a complete and comfortable colonoscopy, if possible. The purpose of present study was to compare procedure efficiencies according to adult-colonoscope length.
Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial. A total of 239 healthy Korean subjects were randomly assigned to two groups: one group receiving intermediate-length adult-colonoscope (n = 119), and the other group receiving long-length adult-colonoscope (n = 120). Cecal intubation time and rate, and terminal ileal intubation time and rate as well as other procedure-related outcomes (adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and total procedure time) were evaluated.
Results: There were significant differences in cecal intubation time and terminal ileal intubation rate according to colonoscope length. The time of cecal intubation was shorter in the intermediate-scope group than that in the long-scope group ((222.13 ± 101.67) s vs. (253.85 ± 109.40) s, P = 0.014). However, the rate of terminal ileal intubation was higher in the long-scope group than that in the intermediate-scope group (94.2% vs. 83.2%, P = 0.007). In addition, terminal ileal intubation time was also shorter in the long-scope group than that in the intermediate-scope group ((35.21 ± 38.89) s vs. (44.09 ± 33.87) s, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other procedure-related outcomes between the two groups.
Conclusions: The intermediate-length adult-colonoscope had an advantage over the long-length adult-colonoscope regarding cecal intubation time, whereas the long-scope had an advantage over the intermediate-scope regarding the rate and time of terminal ileal intubation. These results suggest that it is rational to prepare and use these two types of colonoscope properly, instead of employing only one type of colonoscope.