TY  - JOUR
T1  - Kolonoskopi hazırlığı için polietilen glikol, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid kullanımının karşılaştırılması
TT  - Comparison of polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate and sennoside for colonoscopy preparation
AU  - Kaplan, Mustafa
PY  - 2018
DA  - December
DO  - 10.17940/endoskopi.437152
JF  - Endoskopi Gastrointestinal
PB  - Türk Gastroenteroloji Vakfı
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1302-5422
SP  - 74
EP  - 77
VL  - 26
IS  - 3
LA  - tr
AB  - Amaç: Buçalışmada kolonoskopi hazırlığı için kullanılan polietilen glikol (PEG), sodyumfosfat ve sennosidin etkinlikleri, çekuma ulaşma oranları ve yan etkileri karşılaştırılmıştır.Yöntem: Buçalışma Temmuz 2017-Mart 2018 tarihleri arasında kolonoskopiyapılan hastaların kayıtları retrospektif incelenerek yapılmıştır. Hastalar 3gruba bölünmüştür: PEG, sodyum fosfat ve sennosid grubu. Diyetuyumsuzluğu olan, ilaçların %75’ten azını içen, renal yetmezlik, intestinal obstruksiyon, aktif enfeksiyonve aktif kanaması olan hastalar çalışmadan dışlanmıştır. Kolon temizliği mükemmel, iyi, orta ve kötü olmak üzere 4 gruptadeğerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmapopülasyonu 129 kadın (%48) ve 140 erkek (%52) erkek hasta olmak üzere 269 kişiden oluştu. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 55yıldı. Tüm hastalar incelendiğinde mükemmeltemizlik oranı % 38, iyi temizlikoranı %17, orta temizlik oranı %26 vekötü temizlik oranı %19 olarakbulundu. Sennosid grubunda yeterli temizlik oranı %52, sodyum fosfat grubunda%50 ve PEG grubunda %66 olarak bulundu. Çalışmada 242 hastada çekuma ulaşıldı (%90).Çekuma ulaşma oranı PEG grubunda %100 iken sennosid grubunda %87 ve sodyumfosfat grubunda %85 olarak bulunmuştur. Hastalarda en sık görülen yan etkiler isebulantı/kusma (%12) ve karın ağrısı idi (%9).Sonuç: PEG ilekolonoskopi hazırlığı sennosid ve sodyum fosfat ile hazırlığa göre daha efektifbir yöntemdir.
KW  - Polietilen glikol
KW  - sodyum fosfat
KW  - sennosid
KW  - PEG
N2  - Background and aim: The efficiency,cecal intubation rate and side effects of colonoscopy preparation with polyethyleneglycol (PEG), sodium phosphate and sennosid were compared in this study. Materialand Methods: This study was carried out retrospectively byinvestigating the records of patients undergoing colonoscopy between July 2017and March 2018.The patients were divided into 3 groups: PEG, sodium phosphateand sennoside group. Patients with dietary incompatibility, renalinsufficiency, intestinal obstruction, active infection, active bleeding and whotook fewer than 75% of medications were excluded from the study. Bowelpreperation was evaluated in 4 groups as excellent,good, moderate and poor. Results: Thestudy population was consisted of 269 persons, 129 female (48%) and 140 male(52%) patients. The average age of the patients was 55 years. When all patientswere examined, the excellent cleaningrate was 38%, the good cleaning ratewas 17%, the moderate cleaning ratewas 26% and the poor cleaning ratewas 19%. The adequate cleaning rate was found 52% in the sennoside group, 50%in the sodium phosphate group and 66% in the PEG group. In this study, total cecalintubation rate was 90%. The cecal intubation rate was 100% in the PEG group,87% in the sennoside group and 85% in the sodium phosphate group. The most commonside effects in patients were nausea / vomiting (12%) and abdominal pain (9%).Conclusion: Colonoscopypreparation with PEG is a more effective method than preparation with sennosideand sodium phosphate.
CR  - 1- Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003 Feb; 124(2):544-60.
CR  - 2- Boyle P, Leon ME. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull. 2002; 64(1):1-25.
CR  - 3- Fayad NF, Kahi CJ. Colonoscopy quality assessment. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr; 25(2):373-86.
CR  - 4- Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: adverse event reports for oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 29: 15-28.
CR  - 5- Valverde A, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, et al. Senna vs polyethyleneglycol for mechanical preparation the eveningbefore elective colonic or rectal resection: a multicentercontrolled trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 1999;134:514-19.
CR  - 6- Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WG, Prentice RS, Da Costa LR, Beck IT. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1990; 85: 422-427.
CR  - 7- Kojecky V, Dolina J, Kianicka B, et al. A single or split dose picosulphate/magnesium citrate before colonoscopy: comparison regarding tolerance and efficacy with polyethylene glycol. A randomized trial. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2014 Jun; 23(2):141-6.
CR  - 8- Bektaş H, Balık E, Bilsel Y, et al. Comparison of sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, and senna solutions in bowel preparation: A prospective, randomizedcontrolled clinical study. Digestive Endoscopy 2005;17:290-96.
CR  - 9- İlker SÜCÜLLÜ, A.İlker FİLİZ, Oğuz OKUL, Ergün YÜCEL, Yavuz KURT, M. Levhi AKIN. Kolonoskopi Öncesi Barsak Temizliğinde Sodyum Fosfat ve Sennosid’in Karşılaştırılması: Prospektif Randomize Çalışma. Kolon Rektum Hast. Derg. 2008; 133-137.
CR  - 10- Yekta TÜZÜN, Coflkun BEYAZ, Mustafa YAKUT, Şerif YILMAZ, Kadim BAYAN, Mehmet DURSUN, Fikri CANORUÇ. Konstipasyonlu bireylerin kolonoskopi hazırlığında polietilen glikol ile sodyum fosfatın etkinlik ve güvenilirliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Endoskopi Dergisi, 2009; 17(1): 23-27.
CR  - 11-Lee SW, Bang CS, Park TY, Suk KT, Baik GH, Kim DJ. Split-dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 2 Liters Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid versus Sodium Picosulfate versus Oral Sodium Phosphate Tablets. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug 25;70(2):89-95.
CR  - 12- Cheng J, Tao K, Shuai X, Gao J. Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4033-41.
CR  - 13- De Salvo L, Borgonovo G, Ansaldo GL, et al. The bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. A randomized trial comparing three methods. Ann Ital Chir. 2006 Mar-Apr;77(2):143-6;
CR  - 14-Van Gorkom BA, Karrenbeld A, Limburg AJ, Kleibeuker JH. The effect of sennosides on colonic mucosal histology and bowel preparation. Z Gastroenterol. 1998 Jan;36(1):13-8.
CR  - 15- Bechtold ML, Choudhary A. Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a continual search for excellence. World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan 14;19(2):155-7.
CR  - 16-Singh HK, Withers GD, Ee LC. Quality indicators in pediatric colonoscopy: an Australian tertiary center experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;52(12):1453-1456.
CR  - 17-Valori RM, Damery S, Gavin DR,et al. A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI). Endoscopy. 2018 Jan;50(1):40-51.
CR  - 18- Leitao K, Grimstad T, Bretthauer M, et al. Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation. Endosc Int Open. 2014 Dec;2(4):E230-4.
CR  - 19-Yoon Suk Jung, Chang Kyun Lee, Hyo Jong Kim, Chang Soo Eun, Dong Soo Han, Dong Il Park. Randomized controlled trial of sodium phosphate tablets vspolyethylene glycol solution for colonoscopy bowel cleansing. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 14; 20(42): 15845–15851.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.17940/endoskopi.437152
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/623635
ER  -