Skip to main content
Log in

Prone Positioning of Obese Patients for Colonoscopy Results in Shortened Cecal Intubation Times: A Randomized Trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for colorectal cancer, and colonoscopy can be technically challenging in obese patients. It has been proposed (with little supporting data) that prone positioning of obese patients might facilitate a difficult colonoscopy.

Aim

The aim of this study was to determine if starting colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients decreases cecal intubation times.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized study conducted at the North Texas VA Medical Center. Patients with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to either initial prone positioning or standard, left-lateral positioning. The outcome measurements were cecal intubation time, frequency of repositioning, sedative medications used, reports of pain, complications, and procedure tolerability.

Results

Fifty patients were randomized to have colonoscopy starting in the standard, left-lateral decubitus position, and 51 to the prone position. The average cecal intubation time for the standard group was 550 vs. 424 s in the prone group (p = 0.03). Patient repositioning was used in 28 % of patients in the standard group versus 8 % in the prone group (p = 0.009). There was no difference in subjective reports of pain between groups (p = 0.95) or in average pain scores (p = 0.79). Follow-up interviews were conducted in 93 % of patients, all of whom said that they would be willing to have repeat colonoscopy in the same position.

Conclusions

Performance of colonoscopy in the prone position for obese patients results in significantly shorter cecal intubation times and decreased need for patient repositioning. Prone positioning is well accepted and does not significantly increase procedure-related discomfort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ogden CL, Carroll ME, Kit BK, et al. Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2012;82:1–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moghaddam AA, Woodward M, Huxley R. Obesity and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 31 studies with 70,000 events. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:2533–2547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haggar FA, Boushey RP. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2009;22:191–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips KA, Liang SY, Ladabaum U, et al. Trends in colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 2007;45:160–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schreiner MA, Fennerty MB. Endoscopy in the obese patient. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2010;39:87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borg BB, Gupta NK, Zukerman GR, et al. Impact of obesity on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:670–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hansel SL, Prechel JA, Horn B, et al. Observational study of the frequency of use and perceived usefulness of ancillary maneuvers to facilitate colonoscopy completion. Dig Liv Dis. 2009;41:812–816.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts-Thomson IC, Teo E. Colonoscopy: art or science? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:180–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Waye JD, Yessayan SA, Lewis BS, et al. The technique of abdominal pressure in total colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:147–151.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Desormeaux M, Scicluna M, Friedland S. Colonoscopy in obese patients: a growing problem. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:AB89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Silva AP, Kumarasena RS, Perera Keragala SD, et al. The prone 12 o’clock position reduces ileal intubation time during colonoscopy compared to the left lateral 6 o’clock (standard) position. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chutkan R. Colonoscopy issues related to women. Gastrointest Endoscopy Clin N Am. 2006;16:153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tishler PV, Larkin EK, Schluchter MD, et al. Incidence of sleep-disordered breathing in an urban adult population. JAMA. 2003;289:2230–2237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung SA, Yuan H, Chung F. A systemic review of obstructive sleep apnea and its implications for anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1543–1563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda A. Feagins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uddin, F.S., Iqbal, R., Harford, W.V. et al. Prone Positioning of Obese Patients for Colonoscopy Results in Shortened Cecal Intubation Times: A Randomized Trial. Dig Dis Sci 58, 782–787 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2468-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-012-2468-x

Keywords

Navigation