首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Endoscopy >A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of three methods of bowel preparation for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy.
【24h】

A prospective randomized single-blind comparison of three methods of bowel preparation for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy.

机译:门诊柔性乙状结肠镜检查三种肠道准备方法的前瞻性随机单盲比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Preparation for outpatient flexible sigmoidoscopy using a self-administered phosphate enema is the standard practice in our unit, but it provides acceptable bowel preparation in only 80% of patients. This study compared two methods of bowel preparation with the current standard in an attempt to improve efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: From January to September 2003, patients scheduled for out-patient flexible sigmoidoscopy were prospectively randomized to 3 groups: group 1: one Fleet enema 2 h pre-procedure; group 2: two Fleet enemas, one on the evening prior to sigmoidoscopy and one 2 h pre-procedure; group 3: lactulose 30 ml orally 48 and 24 h prior to sigmoidoscopy, plus a single Fleet enema 2 h pre-procedure. A patient questionnaire was used to assess side effects and tolerance. The endoscopists questionnaire assessed the indication for the procedure, quality of preparation, depth of insertion, and pathological findings identified. Power calculations were based on the 80% acceptablepreparation rate obtained using a single enema. RESULTS: For this study, 305 patients were randomized to the three groups. Patient data were available for 261 patients (group 1 = 105; group 2 = 81; group 3 = 75), and endoscopist data were available for 251 patients (group 1 = 97; group 2 = 79; group 3 = 75). No difference was noted between the groups with regard to age, gender, procedure indication, grade of endoscopist, or patient acceptability variables (ease of use: p = 0.09; assistance required: p = 0.11; cramps experienced: p = 0.84; alternative method: p = 0.25). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of depth of insertion (p = 0.42-chi-squared test) or abnormalities noted (p = 0.34-chi-squared test). Nor was there any difference in the quality of preparation of patients in group 1 versus group 2 (p = 0.39-Fishers exact test) or group 1 versus group 3 (p = 0.13-Fishers exact). However, lactulose + Fleet resulted in significantly fewer patients with acceptable preparation compared with those who administered two Fleet enemas (p = 0.02- Fishers exact test). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a Fleet enema or oral lactulose over and above a single Fleet enema gives no significant improvement in the acceptability or efficacy of bowel preparation.
机译:背景:使用自给式磷酸盐灌肠剂为门诊柔性乙状结肠镜做准备是我们单位的标准做法,但只有80%的患者可以接受肠准备。这项研究将两种肠道准备方法与当前标准进行了比较,以提高疗效和可接受性。方法:从2003年1月至2003年9月,将计划进行门诊柔性乙状结肠镜检查的患者随机分为3组:第1组:术前2小时行一次车队灌肠;第1小时进​​行一次静脉灌肠。第2组:两次Fleet灌肠,一次在乙状结肠镜检查之前的晚上,另一次在手术前2小时;第3组:乙状结肠镜检查前48和24 h口服30 ml乳果糖,术前2 h加一次Fleet灌肠。使用患者问卷调查来评估副作用和耐受性。内窥镜医师问卷调查评估了手术的适应症,准备的质量,插入的深度以及所发现的病理结果。功率计算基于使用单个灌肠剂获得的80%可接受的制备率。结果:本研究将305例患者随机分为三组。有261名患者的患者数据(第1组= 105;第2组= 81;第3组= 75),内镜医师数据有251名患者(第1组= 97;第2组= 79;第3组= 75)。两组之间在年龄,性别,手术适应症,内镜医师的等级或患者可接受性变量方面均无差异(易用性:p = 0.09;所需协助:p = 0.11;抽筋:p = 0.84;替代方法:p = 0.25)。在插入深度(p = 0.42卡方检验)或注意到的异常(p = 0.34卡方检验)方面,两组之间无显着差异。第1组与第2组(p = 0.39-Fishers精确检验)或第1组与第3组(p = 0.13-Fishers精确)的患者准备质量也没有任何差异。但是,乳果糖+ Fleet与接受两次Fleet灌肠的患者相比,接受可接受制剂的患者明显减少(p = 0.02- Fishers精确检验)。结论:在单支Fleine灌肠剂之上或之上添加Fleet灌肠剂或口服乳果糖不能明显改善肠道制剂的可接受性或功效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号