The Journal of Practical Medicine ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 611-617.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.04.010

• Emerging Technologies and Applications in Clinical Practice • Previous Articles    

Evaluation of the application value of intraoperative spraying dimethicone as needed combined with oral sulphate solution in colonoscopy

Yongping ZHENG1,Cheng PENG1,Ximei REN1,Maofeng GONG2,Yang LIU1,3()   

  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology,the Affiliated Jiangning Hospital of Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 211100,Jiangsu,China
    2.Department of Interventional Angiology,Nanjing First Hospital,Nanjing 210000,Jiangsu,China
    3.Jiangning Clinical Medical College,Kangda College of Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 211100,Jiangsu,China
  • Received:2025-11-07 Online:2026-02-25 Published:2026-02-25
  • Contact: Yang LIU E-mail:641499904@qq.com

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative spraying of dimethicone as needed, combined with oral sulphate solution (OSS), for bowel preparation, and compare this efficacy with that of conventional oral dimethicone before colonoscopy. Methods A total of 360 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Affiliated Jiangning Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January to August 2025 were selected. According to the random number table method, they were divided into two groups: the control group (receiving OSS combined with oral dimethicone before colonoscopy) and the observation group (receiving OSS combined with intraoperative spraying of dimethicone as needed). The differences in intestinal cleanliness, bubble score, examination duration, polyp detection rate, and adverse reactions between the two groups were compared. Results Comparative analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the intestinal cleanliness of the BBPS score between the two groups (2.42 ± 0.59 vs. 2.48 ± 0.54, 2.62 ± 0.49 vs. 2.64 ± 0.48, 2.73 ± 0.46 vs. 2.71 ± 0.47, 7.78 ± 1.16 vs. 7.83 ± 1.14, P > 0.05). The bubble score of the observation group demonstrated superior results in all intestinal segments (2.77 ± 0.42 vs. 2.27 ± 0.59, 2.87 ± 0.34 vs. 2.37 ± 0.52, 2.92 ± 0.27 vs. 2.70 ± 0.50, 8.56 ± 0.74 vs. 7.34 ± 0.99, P < 0.01). In terms of bubble grading, the observation group showed significantly higher proportions of Grade A ratings in all intestinal segments compared to the control group (76.67% vs. 34.44%, 86.67% vs. 38.89%, 92.22% vs. 70.00%, P < 0.01). Regarding the examination duration, the observation group took slightly longer than the control group with no statistically significant difference (12.43 ± 2.52 vs. 11.40 ± 2.33, P > 0.05). The detection rate of micro-polyps in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (21.6% vs. 12.7%, P < 0.05). Additionally, patients in the two groups demonstrated good tolerance with mild adverse reactions. Conclusions The application of intraoperative spraying of dimethicone as needed, combined with OSS, achieved a better defoaming effect. This can further improve the quality of intestinal preparation and the detection rate of micro-polyps, providing a reference for optimizing the intestinal preparation scheme and having significant clinical application value.

Key words: colorectal cancer, bowel preparation, bubble score, dimethicone, oral sulphate solution

CLC Number: