Scientific publications

Comparative study of a responsive insertion technology (RIT) colonoscope versus a variable-stiffness colonoscope

Apr 1, 2013 | Magazine: Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas

Prieto-de-Frías C, Muñoz-Navas M, Carretero C, Carrascosa J, Betés MT, de-la-Riva S, Herraiz MT, Súbtil JC.


recently, Olympus developed a new prototype (XCF-Q180AY2L) with responsive insertion technology (RIT), which besides the still known variable stiffness technology, included a passive bending section and a new high force insertion tube. Our objective was to investigate whether the use of this prototype could ease colonoscope insertion, increasing the cecal intubation rate, and/or shortening the cecal intubation time.


the study was designed as a prospective observational study in 305 consecutive patients from a colo-rectal cancer screening program. We compared colonoscopies performed with conventional colonoscopes (CFH180AL/CFQ160L) with those performed with the prototype XCF-Q180AY2L. End points were mean cecal and terminal ileal intubation times, cecum intubation rate, and need for specific maneuvers. All colonoscopies were performedunder sedation with intravenous propofol. Finally, 288 patients were included.


no complications were observed. Complete cecal intubation rate was 100 % in both groups. The ileum could be reached in 98.95 % of cases. Mean time required to reach the cecum was shorter in the prototype endoscope group (4.31 min, SD 2.63 min) than in the conventional endoscope group (4.66 min, SD 2.52 min) (p < 0.05). Compared with the standard colonoscope group, we observed in the prototype group less subjective sensation of difficultyin the passage of the sigma (p < 0.01), fewer maneuvers when it proved necessary to straighten the scope (p < 0.01), and less frequent need to modify the stiffness of the endoscope (p < 0.05).


we concluded that the prototype endoscope (XCFQ180AY2L) facilitated colonoscope insertion, requiring slightly less time to reach the cecum than a standard colonoscope.

CITA DEL ARTÍCULO  Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2013 Apr;105(4):208-13