HyGIeaCare® Preparation for Colonoscopy-A Technical Update for Success

Gagneja, Harish K.; Parekh, Parth J.

doi:10.4172/2161-069x.1000458

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding safety issues, there seem to be fewer side effects in patients undergoing CHT compared to oral preparation with cathartics. This is in line with the results of other studies of colonic irrigation in the form of colon hydrotherapy 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 32 . No AEs were recorded during the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Colonic irrigation as an alternative method has been reported and was described as safe, effective and well tolerated. In addition, bowel cleansing quality of colonic irrigation is considered comparable to oral purgative regimes but with less side effects and high patient satisfaction 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . Furthermore, colonic irrigation in the form of colon hydrotherapy is described by Parekh et al as the “future direction of bowel preparation” 18 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy with a new colonic irrigation device: Results of a prospective observational study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims The success of colonoscopy is mainly dependent on the effectiveness of prior bowel preparation (BP). Patients often consider BP to be the most burdensome part of colonoscopy, which might be a main barrier to the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and effectiveness of colonic irrigation with a new colon hydrotherapy (CHT) device as an alternative to traditional oral BP. Patients and methods A prospective, non-randomized observational study was conducted to evaluate the quality of BP. A BP was considered effective if a score of 6 or better through the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) could be reached. Colonoscopy was performed immediately following colonic irrigation. For safety analysis, data on adverse events (AEs) were collected. Among the secondary outcomes, the BBPS assessed in each bowel segment and cecal intubation rate were analyzed. Results Twenty-eight consecutive patients (11 male [39.3%] and 17 [60.7 %] female) undergoing screening/surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled. Mean age was 54 ± 12.4 years (range 19–80). The evaluated mean BBPS was 7.8 ± 1.5. Twenty-five patients (89.3 %) had a BBPS score of 6 or above. Colonic irrigation was performed without any complications and no AEs were reported within 30 days. The cecal intubation rate was 100 %. Conclusions Colonic irrigation with a new CHT device is an effective and low-risk alternative to traditional oral preparation prior to colonoscopy.

show abstract