Background and study aims Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure that may cause patients pain and discomfort. Routine use of sedation, while effective, is expensive and requires logistical planning. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, three-dimensional experiences that distract the attention and might comfort patients. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of VR distraction during colonoscopy. Patients and methods Adults referred for colonoscopy were considered for inclusion and divided over two groups: with and without VR glasses. The main outcome was patient acceptance of wearing VR glasses during colonoscopy without compromising the technical success of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were patient comfort, pain, and anxiety before, during and after the procedure, using validated patient questionnaires. Patient comments were collected through a qualitative interview. Results We included 19 patients, 10 of whom were offered VR glasses. All patients accepted VR glasses without prolonging procedural time. No disadvantages of the VR glasses were reported in terms of communication or change of position of the patient. We found that patient comfort, pain, anxiety, and satisfaction in relation to the procedure were similar in both groups. Patients described a pleasant distracting effect using VR glasses. Conclusion VR glasses during colonoscopy are accepted by patients and do not compromise endoscopic technical success. Patients reported that the VR experience was pleasant and distracting.

Background and aim Stenosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy is a well-known long-term complication of pancreatoduodenectomy. Traditionally, the endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic retrograde pancreaticography (ERP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention has emerged as an alternative, but the success rate and adverse event rate of both treatment modalities are poorly known. We aimed to compare the outcome data of both interventions Methods We performed a systematic literature search using the Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases with the aim of summarizing the available data regarding efficacy and complications of ERP-and EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and compare these outcome data using uniform outcome measures in a multilevel logistic model. Results In total 13 studies were included, with 89 patients having undergone ERP-guided drainage and 113 patients EUS-guided drainage. An EUS-guided approach was significantly superior to an ERP-guided approach with regard to cannulation success (80% vs 20%, p<0.000), pancreatic duct opacification (86% vs 25%, p<0.000) and stent placement (73% vs 20%, p<0.000). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality. Conclusion Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.

Background: Optimal patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We developed computer based education (CBE) supported by video and 3D animations. We hypothesized that CBE replaces nurse counselling without losing quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcome measures were sickness absence due to outpatient clinic visit, patient anxiety / satisfaction scores and information re-call. We included patients in four endoscopy units (rural, urban, and tertiary). Results: We screened 1035 eligible patients and randomized 845. After evaluation, 684 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group. Subsequently, 497 patients were included in per-protocol (PP) analysis, 217 in nurse counselling and 280 in the CBE group. Baseline characteristics were similarly distributed among groups. In PP analysis, adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 93.2 % (261/280) of CBE patients, which was non-inferior to nurse counselled patients (94%, 204/217), with a difference of -0.8% [95% CI [- 5.1; 3.5]%. Non-inferiority was confirmed in the ITT population. Sickness absence was significantly more frequent in nurse counselled patients (28.0% vs 4.8%). In CBE patients, 21.5% needed additional information, resulting in 3.0% extra outpatient visits. Conclusion: CBE is non-inferior to nurse counselling in terms of bowel preparation during colonoscopy, with lower patient sickness leave. CBE may serve as an efficient educational tool informing patients before colonoscopy in routine clinical practice.

Background and study aims  Better patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We reasoned that computer assisted instruction (CAI) using video and 3 D animations followed by nurse contact maximizes the effectiveness of nurse counselling, increases proportion of clean colons and improves patient experience. Patients and methods  Adults referred for colonoscopy in a high-volume endoscopy unit in the Netherlands were included. Exclusion criteria were illiteracy in Dutch and audiovisual handicaps. Patients were prospectively divided into 2 groups, 1 group received nurse counselling and 1 group received CAI and a nurse contact before colonoscopy. The main outcome, cleanliness of the colon during examination, was measured with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). We assessed patient comfort and anxiety at 3 different time points. Results  We included 385 patients: 197 received traditional nurse counselling and 188 received CAI. Overall patient response rates were 99 %, 76.4 % and 69.9 % respectively. Endoscopists scored cleanliness in 60.8 %. Comparative analysis of the 39.2 % of patients with missing scores showed no significant difference on age, gender or educational level. Baseline characteristics were evenly distributed over the groups. Bowel cleanliness was satisfactory and did not differ amongst groups: nurse vs. CAI group scores in BBPS: (6.54 ± 1.69 vs. 6.42 ± 1.62); OBPS: (6.07 ± 2.53 vs. 5.80 ± 2.90). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher (4.29 ± 0.62 vs. 4.42 ± 0.68) in the CAI group shortly before colonoscopy. Anxiety and knowledge scores were similar. Conclusion  CAI is a safe and practical tool to instruct patients before colonoscopy. We recommend the combination of CAI with a short nurse contact for daily practice.

No abstract