Premium
TRIAL OF TRANSNASAL ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY
Author(s) -
Abe Kiminori,
Miyaoka Masaaki
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
digestive endoscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.5
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1443-1661
pISSN - 0915-5635
DOI - 10.1111/j.0915-5635.2006.00609.x
Subject(s) - esophagogastroduodenoscopy , medicine , nausea , vomiting , premedication , surgery , endoscope , adverse effect , endoscopy , anesthesia
Background: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is conventionally performed transorally, although this is often a rather unpleasant experience for the patient. In the present study, we examined the merits and demerits of transnasal EGD. Materials and Methods: We used two types of small‐diameter endoscope, produced by Olympus Co. and Fujinon Toshiba ES Systems Co., Ltd. Results: Transnasal EGD was performed successfully in 98.8% (955/967) of patients examined. When questioned about premedication and the degree of discomfort, the great majority of patients stated that transnasal EGD was more comfortable than a transoral procedure. The incidences of nausea and vomiting were low at 8.6% (82/955) and 0.8% (8/955), respectively. Other identified adverse reactions were nasal pain in 42.9% (415/967) of patients, and epistaxis in 1.1% (11/967). The average time taken for transnasal EGD was 8.2 ± 0.7 min, approximately 1 min longer than for the transoral method. Conclusion: Transnasal EGD is less stressful to patients than transoral EGD, and is a feasible and safe alternative.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom