Korean J Gastrointest Endosc.  2006 Dec;33(6):333-338.

Conventional EGD versus Small-caliber EGD : The Thinner, the Better?

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea. drmaloman@catholic.ac.kr
  • 2Division of Biostatistics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS
Small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (scEGD) was developed to facilitate unsedated EGD, and has many advantages over sedated EGD in terms of costs and complications. This study compared the feasibility and tolerance of scEGD with unsedated conventional EGD (cEGD), and examined the effect of the endoscopic diameter on the patients' tolerance.
METHODS
A total of 114 patients who were referred for a diagnostic EGD was randomly allocated to undergo either scEGD (GIF XP260, Olympus, diameter 6.5 mm; n=57) or cEGD (GIF XQ240, Olympus, diameter 9.0 mm; n=57). After EGD, the patients and endoscopists completed questionnaires on the level of discomfort, satisfaction and acceptance of the examination.
RESULTS
Patients in the scEGD group reported significantly less discomfort (choking, pain and nausea) and more overall satisfaction than those in the cEGD group. Patients in the scEGD group were more willing to choose the same procedure again if medically indicated. According to multivariate analysis, the ultrathin endoscopic diameter itself was positively associated with the increased patients' satisfaction (odds ratio 3.07, p=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
scEGD has comparable feasibility and accuracy but is more tolerable than cEGD. scEGD may have a role in clinical practice by minimizing the level of discomfort during unsedated EGD.

Keyword

Small-caliber EGD; Conventional EGD; Patient's satisfaction
Full Text Links
  • KJGE
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2020 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr