The Journal of Practical Medicine >

2026 , Vol. 42 >Issue 4: 611 - 617

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.04.010

Emerging Technologies and Applications in Clinical Practice

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

  • Yongping ZHENG ,
  • Cheng PENG ,
  • Ximei REN ,
  • Maofeng GONG ,
  • Yang LIU
Expand
  • 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 date: 2025-11-07

  Online published: 2026-02-25

Fold

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

Cite this article

Yongping ZHENG , Cheng PENG , Ximei REN , Maofeng GONG , Yang LIU . Evaluation of the application value of intraoperative spraying dimethicone as needed combined with oral sulphate solution in colonoscopy[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2026 , 42(4) : 611 -617 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2026.04.010

References

[1] WANG Y， WU Z L， WANG Y G， et al. Early colorectal cancer screening-no time to lose［J］. World J Gastroenterol， 2024， 30（23）： 2959-2963. doi：10.3748/wjg.v30.i23.2959 .
[2] 中华医学会肿瘤学分会早诊早治学组. 胃癌早诊早治中国专家共识（2023版）［J］. 中华消化外科杂志， 2024， 23（1）： 23-36. doi：10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20231207-00239 .
[3] HASSAN C， ANTONELLI G， DUMONCEAU J M， et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance： European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy （ESGE） guideline - update 2020［J］. Endoscopy， 2020， 52（8）： 687-700. doi：10.1055/a-1185-3109 .
[4] 中华医学会消化内镜学分会结直肠学组. 结肠镜检查肠道准备专家共识意见（2023，广州）［J］. 中华消化内镜杂志， 2023， 40（6）： 421-430. doi：10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20230607-00230 .
[5] JIANG W， XIN L， ZHU S， et al. Risk factors related to polyp miss rate of short-term repeated colonoscopy［J］. Dig Dis Sci， 2023， 68（5）： 2040-2049. doi：10.1007/s10620-023-07848-x .
[6] BERAN A， ABOURSHEID T， ALI A H， et al. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in colonoscopy： A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis［J］. Am J Gastroenterol， 2024， 119（12）： 2389-2397. doi：10.14309/ajg. 0000000000003073 .
[7] SHAHINI E， SINAGRA E， VITELLO A， et al. Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients： Evidence from the literature［J］. World J Gastroenterol， 2023， 29（11）： 1685-1707. doi：10.3748/wjg.v29.i11.1685 .
[8] ZESSNER-SPITZENBERG J， WALDMANN E， ROCKENBAUER L M， et al. Impact of bowel preparation quality on colonoscopy findings and colorectal cancer deaths in a nation-wide colorectal cancer screening program［J］. Am J Gastroenterol， 2024， 119（10）： 2036-2044. doi：10.14309/ajg. 0000000000002880 .
[9] JIN T， CHENG H X， HAO J Y， et al. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy： A retrospective cohort study［J］. World J Gastrointest Surg， 2025， 17（9）： 109540. doi：10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.109540 .
[10] DI PALMA J A， BHANDARI R， CLEVELAND M V， et al. A safety and efficacy comparison of a new sulfate-based tablet bowel preparation versus a PEG and ascorbate comparator in adult subjects undergoing colonoscopy［J］. Am J Gastroenterol， 2021， 116（2）： 319-328. doi：10.14309/ajg.0000000000001020 .
[11] 隋向宇， 张颂， 卫佳慧， 等. 渗透性泻药用于结肠镜检查前肠道准备的相关不良反应研究现状［J］. 中华消化内镜杂志， 2025， 42（1）： 78-81. doi：10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20240702-00446 .
[12] PAN P， ZHAO S， WANG S， et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy： A phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial［J］. Gastrointest Endosc， 2023， 98（6）： 977-986.e14. doi：10.1016/j.gie.2023.06.070 .
[13] LIU X， YU W， LIU J， et al. Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy， meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials［J］. Tech Coloproctology， 2024， 28（1）： 99. doi：10.1007/s10151-024-02981-9 .
[14] SAITO Y， OKA S， TAMAI N， et al. Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution for bowel preparation in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy： Noninferiority-based， randomized， controlled study［J］. Dig Endosc， 2021， 33（7）： 1131-1138. doi：10.1111/den.13930 .
[15] LEE J M， LEE K M， KANG H S， et al. Oral sulfate solution is as effective as polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid in a split method for bowel preparation in patients with inactive ulcerative colitis： A randomized， multicenter， and single-blind clinical trial［J］. Gut Liver， 2023， 17（4）： 591-599. doi：10.5009/gnl220202 .
[16] AKRAM U， AHMED S， FATIMA E， et al. Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy： A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials［J］. DEN Open， 2025， 5（1）： e70113. doi：10.1002/deo2.70113 .
[17] 周艳华， 宗晔， 庞姝， 等. 硫酸镁钠钾口服液用于成人结肠镜检查前肠道准备有效性和安全性的Ⅲ期临床多中心随机对照研究［J］. 中华消化内镜杂志， 2024， 41（5）： 359-365. doi：10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20240219-00028 .
[18] JACOBSON B C， ANDERSON J C， BURKE C A， et al. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy： Consensus recommendations by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer［J］. Am J Gastroenterol， 2025， 120（4）： 738-764. doi：10.14309/ajg.0000000000003287 .
[19] ZIMMER V. Intraductal simethicone application for optimization of endoscopic view on direct cholangioscopy［J］. Ann Gastroenterol， 2020， 33（6）： 689. doi：10.20524/aog.2020.0512 .
[20] ZHANG H， LIU J， MA S L， et al. Impact of simethicone on bowel cleansing during colonoscopy in Chinese patients［J］. World J Clin Cases， 2021， 9（10）： 2238-2246. doi：10.12998/wjcc.v9.i10.2238 .
[21] BAI Y， FANG J， ZHAO S B， et al. Impact of preprocedure simethicone on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy： A multicenter， endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial［J］. Endoscopy， 2018， 50（2）： 128-136. doi：10.1055/s-0043-119213 .
[22] 陈肖依， 汪超， 聂燕. 结肠镜诊治肠道准备质量及轻微不良事件的预测模型构建［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2025， 41（19）： 3016-3025. doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.19.009 .
[23] 张建军， 王海鹏， 董广峰， 等. 复方聚乙二醇电解质散联合利那洛肽改善老年便秘患者结肠镜前肠道准备效果的随机对照研究［J］. 实用医学杂志， 2025， 41（19）： 2967-2971. doi：10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.19.002 .
[24] 王忠， 李杨， 尹晓燕. 改良二甲硅油散使用方法在结直肠癌筛查中的应用［J］. 中国全科医学， 2017， 20（6）： 657-660. doi：10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2017.06.005 .
[25] ZHANG J， SUN H， XIONG F， et al. The absolute number of small and diminutive adenomas with high-grade dysplasia is substantially higher compared with large adenomas： A retrospective pooled study［J］. Front Oncol， 2024， 14： 1294745. doi：10.3389/fonc.2024.1294745 .
[26] JACOBSON B C， ANDERSON J C， BURKE C A， et al. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy： Consensus recommendations by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer［J］. Am J Gastroenterol， 2025， 120（4）： 738-764. doi：10.14309/ajg.0000000000003287 .
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉