Comparison of the characteristics of the CF‐H290I and PCF‐Q260JI colonoscopes in non‐sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

AbstractBackground and AimThe purpose of this randomized controlled study was to compare the characteristics of the CF‐H290I (high‐definition) colonoscope with those of the PCF‐Q260JI (high‐resolution) colonoscope in non‐sedated patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery in an effort to help endoscopists to select more effectively and objectively between the various colonoscopes.MethodsA total of 397 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Affiliated Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, between August 2022 and October 2022 were randomized to a CF‐H290I group (n = 198) or a PCF‐Q260JI group (n = 199) using a computer‐generated allocation method. We compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient satisfaction with the examination, discomfort associated with colonoscopy including abdominal distension and pain, cecal intubation time, and patient willingness to undergo colonoscopy in the future between the CF‐H290I and PCF‐Q260JI groups.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the overall ADR between the CF‐H290I and PCF‐Q260JI groups (81 [40.9%] vs 63 [31.7%], Z = 3.674, P = 0.055). However, the ADRs in the transverse colon and left colon were significantly higher in the CF‐H290I group (22 [11.1%] vs 6 [3.0%], Z = 9.588, P = 0.002 and 57 [28.8%] vs 37 [18.6%], Z = 5.212, P = 0.017, respectively). More sessile serrated lesions were detected in the CF‐H290I group (52 [26.3] vs 30 [15.1%], Z = 7.579, P = 0.006). Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy was better in the PCF‐Q260JI group (8.91 ± 1.09 vs 8.51 ± 1.44, t = −3.158, P < 0.01) with less likelihood of discomfort (23 [11.6%] vs 41 [20.7%], Z = 6.144, P = 0.013), The number of patients willing to undergo colonoscopy in the future was significantly greater in the PCF‐Q260JI group (168 [84.4%] vs 149 [75.3%], Z = 5.186, P = 0.023). The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the CF‐H290I group (256.09 ± 155.70 s vs 315.64 ± 171.64 s, P = 0.004). There were no complications such as perforation or bleeding in either group.ConclusionThe CF‐H290I and PCF‐Q260JI colonoscopes each have advantages when used in patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery. The CF‐H290I has higher ADRs in the transverse and left colon whereas the PCF‐Q260JI is less painful and better accepted by patients. This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Wuxi People's Hospital and was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200063092).