Abstract
BACKGROUND
Music has been used to reduce stress and improve task performance during medical therapy.
AIM
To assess the effects of music on colonoscopy performance outcomes.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent colonoscopy performed by four endoscopists with popular music. Colonoscopy performance outcomes, such as insertion time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR), were compared between the music and non-music groups. To reduce selection bias, propensity score matching was used.
RESULTS
After one-to-one propensity score matching, 169 colonoscopies were selected from each group. No significant differences in insertion time (4.97 vs 5.17 min, P = 0.795) and ADR (39.1% vs 46.2%, P = 0.226) were found between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the insertion time (3.6 vs 3.8 min, P = 0.852) and ADR (51.1% vs 44.7%, P = 0.488) did not significantly differ between the two groups in experts. However, in trainees, PDR (46.9% vs 66.7%, P = 0.016) and ADR (25.9% vs 47.6%, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the music than in the non-music group.
CONCLUSION
The current study found that listening to music during colonoscopy did not affect procedure performance. Moreover, it suggested that music may distract trainees from appropriately detecting adenomas and polyps.
Keywords: Music, Colonoscopy, Performance, Adenoma, Colonic polyps, Cecal insertion time
Core Tip: Music has shown the positive effect on the surgical team in the operating room, no data has been available regarding the effects of music on endoscopist performance. The study aimed to assess the effects of music on colonoscopy performance outcomes. The patients who underwent colonoscopy while listening to music were retrospectively reviewed for colonoscopy performance outcomes, such as insertion time, adenoma and polyp detection rates. Accordingly, our findings showed that listening to music during colonoscopy had no effect on procedure performance. Moreover, our results suggested that listening to music during colonoscopy may distract trainees from appropriately detecting adenomas and polyps.
INTRODUCTION
Music has been used in medical treatment to reduce pain and anxiety[1]. Music, which is commonly played in operating rooms during surgical procedures, has a positive effect on the surgical team[2] considering that not only the patient but also the surgeon may feel tense and stressed. Surgeons’ stress can negatively affect their skills[3], which can have adverse consequences for the patients. However, there are few means for relieving the surgeon’s tension in a constrained operating room. Given its positive effect on the surgical team through a significant decrease in autonomic reactivity, music has been considered one of the few options for relieving the surgeon’s tension[4]. Moreover, music performance increases surgical accuracy and shortens the operative time[5,6].
Colonoscopy has been widely performed for the screening of colorectal cancer[7] and evaluation of lower gastrointestinal diseases. However, this procedure causes anxiety and pain in patients due to abdominal clamping or bloating[8]. To reduce the pain of patients and prevent the movement of patients from interfering with the procedure, endoscopists administer a sedative. However, sedatives may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in elderly people[9]. Several studies have proven that music has a significant effect on reducing anxiety and pain in patients undergoing colonoscopy and the dosage of sedatives required for colonoscopy[10,11]. However, no data has been available regarding the effects of music on endoscopist performance. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess the effects of music on colonoscopy performance outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients
Subjects who underwent colonoscopy at the Gastroenterology Department of Busan Paik Hospital, Korea between June 2019 and March 2021 were enrolled. Since June 2020, all endoscopy procedures had been performed while listening to music. A total of 402 patients underwent colonoscopy during the said period. The identified patients were then divided into two groups: The non-music group, who underwent endoscopy without listening to music from June 2019 to May 2020, and the music group, who underwent endoscopy while listening to music from June 2020 to March 2021.
Clinical data, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, colonoscopy indications, and pathological findings, were obtained by reviewing past medical records. The ASA score was evaluated to assess patient risk prior to colonoscopy. Patients underwent colonoscopy for several indications, including abdominal pain, hematochezia, melena, diarrhea, constipation, and screening purposes in asymptomatic individuals.
Endoscopists
Four endoscopists, consisting of two experts and two trainees, participated in the study. Both experts were board-certified and experienced endoscopists, each of whom had performed more than 5000 colonoscopies, whereas both trainees had < 1 year of experience. Their preferred pop music was played through the blue-tooth speakers in the endoscopic room at a volume of between 50 and 60 dB. A colonoscope (CF-H260AL or CF-HQ290L; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was used to perform the colonoscopy from June 2019 to March 2021.
Bowel preparation
Bowel preparation was performed using the bowel cleansing product consisting of 2 L of a solution containing polyethylene glycol. The quality of bowel preparation was scored according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and characterized as adequate (BBPS score ≥ 6 and/or all segment scores ≥ 2) or fair (total score of 3-5).
Colonoscopy performance outcomes
Primary endpoints were cecal insertion time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The PDR was defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one polyp was detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies performed. The ADR was defined as the number of colonoscopies in which at least one adenoma was detected divided by the total number of colonoscopies.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive data were reported as median and interquartile range. Differences in categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 test. Continuous variables were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test. Analyses were performed using R Statistical Software 4.1.0 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), P values of < 0.05 indicating statistical significance. To reduce selection bias, one-to-one propensity score matching was performed using the R package “Matchlt”. One-to-one matching was conducted with age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ASA score, BBPS, surgical history, and indication for colonoscopy as covariates using greedy matching with caliper of 0.2. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess independent prognostic factors. The covariates for matching estimation included age, sex, BMI, ASA score, BBPS, previous abdominal surgery, and indication for colonoscopy. Covariate selection for multivariate analysis was based on a P value of < 0.2 in univariable analysis, with a logistic regression model.
Ethical statements
This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Busan Paik Hospital and was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines stated in the Declaration of Helsinki (IRB number: 2020-01-192). Requirement for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board given that the researchers only retrospectively accessed a de-identified database for analysis purposes.
RESULTS
Patient characteristics
From June 2019 to March 2021, 402 colonoscopies were performed by four endoscopists. A total of 202 colonoscopies were performed while listening to pop music preferred by the endoscopists, whereas 200 were performed without music. The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Before the propensity score matching, there were significant differences between surgical history and colonoscopy indications. After one-to-one propensity score matching, 169 colonoscopies were selected for each group. The most common indication for colonoscopy was screening of colon cancer, with both groups having the same amount of patient at 51.5% (P = 1.000) after propensity score matching. Cecal intubation rate was 100% in both groups.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients who did and did not listen to music before and after propensity score matching
|
Before propensity score matching
|
After propensity score matching
|
|||||||||
|
Total (n = 402)
|
Music (n = 200)
|
No music (n = 202)
|
P value
|
d
|
Total (n = 338)
|
Music (n = 169)
|
No music (n = 169)
|
P value
|
d
|
|
| Age, yr | 63.0 (54.0-70.0) | 63.0 (54.5-69.0) | 64.0 (54.0-70.0) | 0.642 | 0.08 | 64.0 (55.0-70.0) | 63.0 (53.0-69.0) | 64.0 (56.0-70.0) | 0.353 | 0.13 |
| Female sex | 190 (47.3%) | 96 (48.0%) | 94 (46.5%) | 0.846 | 0.03 | 157 (46.4%) | 83 (49.1%) | 74 (43.8%) | 0.383 | 0.11 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 23.7 (21.9-26.0) | 23.7 (21.9-26.2) | 23.7 (21.8-25.9) | 0.992 | 0.00 | 23.7 (22.0-25.9) | 24.0 (22.1-26.2) | 23.6 (21.8-25.8) | 0.383 | 0.09 |
| ASA score | 0.746 | 0.01 | 0.546 | 0.12 | ||||||
| 1 | 171 (42.5%) | 86 (43.0%) | 85 (42.1%) | 152 (45.0%) | 79 (46.7%) | 73 (43.2%) | ||||
| 2 | 204 (50.7%) | 100 (50.0%) | 104 (51.5%) | 167 (49.4%) | 83 (49.1%) | 84 (49.7%) | ||||
| 3 | 26 (6.5%) | 14 (7.0%) | 12 (5.9%) | 18 (5.3%) | 7 (4.1%) | 11 (6.5%) | ||||
| 4 | 1 (0.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) | ||||
| BBPS | 0.768 | 0.04 | 0.684 | 0.06 | ||||||
| 3-5 | 87 (21.6%) | 45 (22.5%) | 42 (20.8%) | 68 (20.1%) | 32 (18.9%) | 36 (21.3%) | ||||
| 6-9 | 315 (78.4%) | 155 (77.5%) | 160 (79.2%) | 270 (79.9%) | 137 (81.1%) | 133 (78.7%) | ||||
| Surgical history | 0.041 | 0.07 | 0.060 | 0.02 | ||||||
| None | 259 (64.4%) | 121 (60.5%) | 138 (68.3%) | 206 (60.9%) | 98 (58.0%) | 108 (63.9%) | ||||
| Colon | 99 (24.6%) | 60 (30.0%) | 39 (19.3%) | 94 (27.8%) | 56 (33.1%) | 38 (22.5%) | ||||
| Other abdominal organ | 44 (10.9%) | 19 (9.5%) | 25 (12.4%) | 38 (11.2%) | 15 (8.9%) | 23 (13.6%) | ||||
| Indication for colonoscopy | 0.002 | 0.32 | 1.000 | 0.00 | ||||||
| Screening | 207 (51.5%) | 89 (44.5%) | 118 (58.4%) | 174 (51.5%) | 87 (51.5%) | 87 (51.5%) | ||||
| Post operation surveillance | 128 (31.8%) | 66 (33.0%) | 62 (30.7%) | 120 (35.5%) | 60 (35.5%) | 60 (35.5%) | ||||
| Patients with symptoms | 67 (16.7%) | 45 (22.5%) | 22 (10.9%) | 44 (13.0%) | 22 (13.0%) | 22 (13.0%) | ||||
Data are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range). P values were calculated using Kruskal-Wallis test and χ2 test. d: Standardized mean differences of propensity-matched population; BMI: Body mass index; ASA score: American Society of Anesthesiologists score; BBPS: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.
Outcomes of colonoscopy performance
The insertion time (4.97 vs 5.17 min, P = 0.795) and withdrawal time (10.57 vs 11.87 min, P = 0.142) did not significantly differ between both groups. In addition, no significant differences in ADR (39.1% vs 46.2%, P = 0.226) were observed between the two groups, although PDR tended to higher in the non-music group than in music group (56.8% vs 66.9%, P = 0.073) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Outcomes of colonoscopy performance with and without music
|
|
Total (n = 338)
|
Music (n = 169)
|
No music (n = 169)
|
P value
|
| Polyp detection rate | 209 (61.8%) | 96 (56.8%) | 113 (66.9%) | 0.073 |
| Adenoma detection rate | 144 (42.6%) | 66 (39.1%) | 78 (46.2%) | 0.226 |
| Insertion time (min) | 5.09 (3.32-7.33) | 4.97 (3.28-7.03) | 5.17 (3.43-7.78) | 0.795 |
| Withdrawal time (min) | 11.1 (8.48-17.25) | 10.57 (8.40-16.35) | 11.87 (8.63-17.5) | 0.142 |
Data are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range), P values were calculated using Kruskal-Wallis test and χ2 test.
Subgroup analysis according to colonoscopy proficiency
Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate differences according to colonoscopy proficiency (Table 3). Among experts, the insertion time (3.57 vs 3.83 min, P = 0.852), withdrawal time (10.30 vs 10.90 min, P = 0.560), PDR (65.9% vs 67.1%, P > 0.999) and ADR (51.1% vs 44.7%, P = 0.488) did not significantly differ between the two groups. Among trainees, the cecal insertion time (6.30 vs 6.27 min, P = 0.831) and the withdrawal time (10.82 vs 13.68 min, P = 0.123) did not significantly different between music vs non-music groups. However, among trainee, the PDR was significantly lower in the music group than in the non-music group (46.9% vs 66.7%, P = 0.016). A significant difference in the ADR was also noted, with the rate in the music group being significantly lower than that the in non-music group (25.9% vs 47.6%, P = 0.006).
Table 3.
Outcomes of colonoscopy performance according to expert and trainee subgroups
|
|
Polyp detection rate
|
Adenoma detection rate
|
Insertion time (min)
|
Withdrawal time (min)
|
| Expert | ||||
| Total (n = 173) | 115 (66.5%) | 83 (48.0%) | 3.75 (2.57-5.68) | 10.68 (8.22-15.22) |
| Music (n = 88) | 58 (65.9%) | 45 (51.1%) | 3.57 (2.59-5.80) | 10.30 (7.95-15.27) |
| No music (n = 85) | 57 (67.1%) | 38 (44.7%) | 3.83 (2.42-5.65) | 10.90 (8.48-14.10) |
| P value | > 0.999 | 0.488 | 0.852 | 0.560 |
| Trainee | ||||
| Total (n = 165) | 94 (57.0%) | 61 (37.0%) | 6.30 (4.58-8.82) | 12.07 (8.92-19.0) |
| Music (n = 81) | 38 (46.9%) | 21 (25.9%) | 6.30 (4.50-8.70) | 10.82 (8.78-17.43) |
| No music (n = 84) | 56 (66.7%) | 40 (47.6%) | 6.27 (4.78-9.11) | 13.68 (9.31-20.33) |
| P value | 0.016 | 0.006 | 0.831 | 0.123 |
Data are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range), P-values were calculated using Kruskal-Wallis test and χ2 test.
Prognostic factors for adenoma detection and insertion time
Adenoma detection and fast insertion time (< median insertion time of 310 s) were regressed on potential predictors using logistic regression analysis. Among all patients (n = 402), univariable and multivariable analyses found that music was not associated with ADR and fast insertion time (Table 4, Figure 1). Expert endoscopists detected more adenoma, although not statistically significant [odds ratio (OR) = 1.42, P = 0.085)], while younger age (OR = 1.04, P < 0.001), women (OR = 0.55, P = 0.004), and surgical history of colon (OR = 0.62, P = 0.048) showed a significant association with lower ADR in univariable and multivariable regression analyses. Expert endoscopist (OR = 4.69, P < 0.001), higher BMI (OR = 1.07, P = 0.023), adequate BBPS (OR = 2.09, P = 0.003), and previous surgical history of colon (OR = 1.05, P = 0.090) were associated with fast insertion time in univariable analyses, and the results of multivariable analyses were the same except for BBPS.
Table 4.
Prognostic factors for colonoscopy performance (n = 402)
| No. |
Univariable analysis1
|
Multivariable analysis1
|
Univariable analysis2
|
Multivariable analysis2
|
|||||
|
OR (95%CI)
|
P value
|
aOR (95%CI)
|
P value
|
OR (95%CI)
|
P value
|
aOR (95%CI)
|
P value
|
||
| Music | |||||||||
| No | 202 | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Yes | 200 | 0.86 (0.58-1.28) | 0.470 | 1.24 (0.84-1.84) | 0.273 | ||||
| Endoscopist | |||||||||
| Trainee | 207 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Expert | 195 | 1.42 (0.95-2.11) | 0.085 | 1.35 (0.89-2.06) | 0.163 | 4.69 (3.10-7.19) | < 0.001 | 4.48 (2.87-7.11) | < 0.001 |
| Age, yr | 1.04 (1.02-1.06) | < 0.001 | 1.05 (1.03-1.07) | < 0.001 | 0.99 (0.98-1.01) | 0.298 | |||
| Sex | |||||||||
| Male | 212 | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Female | 190 | 0.55 (0.37-0.82) | 0.004 | 0.51 (0.34-0.78) | 0.002 | 0.98 (0.66-1.45) | 0.916 | ||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 1.04 (0.98-1.10) | 0.193 | 1.05 (0.99-1.12) | 0.123 | 1.07 (1.01-1.14) | 0.023 | 1.09 (1.02-1.16) | 0.010 | |
| BBPS | |||||||||
| Fair | 87 | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Adequate | 315 | 0.78 (0.48-1.26) | 0.303 | 2.09 (1.29-3.45) | 0.003 | 1.17 (0.67-2.04) | 0.583 | ||
| Surgical history | |||||||||
| None | 259 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Colon | 99 | 0.62 (0.38-0.99) | 0.048 | 0.49 (0.29-0.81) | 0.006 | 1.50 (0.94-2.42) | 0.090 | 1.71 (1.02-2.88) | 0.042 |
| Other | 44 | 0.74 (0.38-1.41) | 0.369 | 0.76 (0.37-1.50) | 0.427 | 0.25 (0.11-0.52) | < 0.001 | 0.35 (0.15-0.77) | 0.012 |
| Indication | |||||||||
| Screening | 207 | Reference | Reference | ||||||
| Post operation surveillance | 128 | 0.76 (0.48-1.19) | 0.232 | 1.09 (0.70-1.69) | 0.708 | ||||
| Patient with symptoms | 67 | 0.88 (0.50-1.53) | 0.653 | 0.76 (0.43-1.31) | 0.323 | ||||
Adenoma detection.
Fast insertion (< median insertion time of 310 s).
P value for independent variables from logistic regression analysis; No.: Number of patients; OR: Odds ratio; aOR: Adjusted odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; BMI: Body mass index; BBPS: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.
Figure 1.
Forest plot for the prognostic factor of colonoscopy performance. A: Adenoma detection; B: Fast insertion. BMI: Body mass index; BBPS: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.
DISCUSSION
Music has been known to provide a positive effect on surgical performance[12]. On study showed that surgeons who listened to music had reduced operative time and better surgical quality[5]. As with surgeons, music might influence and consequently improve endoscopist’s performance, which can lead to reduced insertion time and increased ADR. In support of this finding, a study by Ardalan et al[13] showed that PDR and ADR increased when listening to Star Wars music. However, the current study showed that music did not significantly affect colonoscopy performance. Although endoscopist and patient factors may have played a role in these different results, the type of music may also be a factor. Indeed, one study showed that listening to Mozart music improve task performance during laparoscopic surgery simulations[6]. Furthermore, a study on the effect of different music genres on surgical performance showed better performance when listening to classical music or hip-hop music compared to exposure to mixed radio music or rock[14]. While the endoscopist’s preferred Korean pop music, which contains mostly lyrics, classical, or Star Wars music has no lyrics. Although a preference for music with lyrics can bring psychological stability, it can actually be a hindrance in terms of improving concentration[15]. Moreover, the volume of the music can influence the efficacy of task performance. Music played too loudly can interfere with communication among operating room staff and act as noise[16], thereby increasing the risk of surgical site infection[17]. As such, we kept the music at 60 dB to facilitate communication.
Trainees who listened to music had low PDR and ADR. This result was in contrast to that found in the expert group where no significant findings were noted. A previous study found similar results to those presented herein after examining the effects of music on novice surgeons[18,19]. They explained that music could have distracted surgeons as they performed new or complex tasks. These results can also be applied to endoscopy trainees. Endoscopy trainees are unfamiliar with endoscopic manipulation and require frequent assessment of the patient’s condition, which inevitably consumes their attention, with music possibly making this situation worse.
The quality of colonoscopy is best determined by the ADR. Variables that can influence the ADR include age, sex, bowel preparation, and endoscopist experience[20]. The current study showed that age, sex, and surgical history were independent prognostic factors for adenoma detection. The ADR and age were positively correlated, with men having higher ADRs than women[21]. A history of abdominal or pelvic surgery makes colonoscopy difficult[22]. In particular, colon surgery affects insertion time, and prolonged insertion time reduces ADR[23,24]. A significant difference in the baseline characteristic of surgical history for colonoscopy was observed between the two groups. However, propensity score matching was performed to minimize the differences in factors that may affect colonoscopy performance.
The role of music in medicine has been growing and expanding. Evidence has shown that music may reduce congestive heart failure by reducing plasma cytokine and catecholamine levels, thereby enhancing parasympathetic activity[25]. Moreover, it influences brain activation and can be helpful in neurorehabilitation[26]. As such, we sought to determine how these positive effects of music might affect colonoscopy performance. Safe, high-quality colonoscopy is important for colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis, as well as treatment of colorectal diseases. High-quality colonoscopy by endoscopists can reduce the incidence of intermittent cancer[27]. However, colonoscopy is a relatively invasive procedure that can cause complications and pain in patients and requires high concentration by endoscopy specialists[28]. Although studies have confirmed the positive effects of music in patients undergoing colonoscopy, no data have been available regarding its effects on the operator. Through this study, we confirmed that music did not have a significant effect on the performance of colonoscopy. Nonetheless, we expect that more studies will be conducted on this matter based on our findings.
The current study has some limitations worth noting. First, given the retrospective nature of our study, selection bias may have occurred. To reduce this bias, we created two groups by matching patients according to indications, age, and sex after they had started listening to music during colonoscopy at the hospital. A randomized study on the effect of music on colonoscopy is needed in the future. Second, the segmentation of abdominal surgery history was insufficient. Although gastric and pelvic surgery may have different effects on colonoscopy performance, we did not divide our patients according to surgery type. Given that pelvic surgery is mostly conducted among women, sex differences should be analyzed; however, the insufficient number of patients prevented us from doing so. Third, the genre of music was limited. While the most preferred and familiar Korean pop music was selected, diversifying the music is necessary considering that the presence of lyrics and music genre may affect colonoscopy performance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, listening to music during colonoscopy did not affect procedure performances. Moreover, our findings suggested that listening to music during colonoscopy can distract trainee’s ability to detect adenomas and polyps.
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
Music has been used to improve task performance and relieving the surgeon’s tension in operating rooms. There are no studies related to the effects of music on the performance of endoscopists.
Research motivation
The role of music in medicine has been growing. Listening to music during colonoscopy affect performance of endoscopists.
Research objectives
The study aimed to assess the effects of music on colonoscopy performance outcomes.
Research methods
We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent colonoscopy performed by endoscopists with popular music. Colonoscopy performance outcomes, such as cecal insertion time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), were compared between the music and non-music groups. The study was performed by propensity score matching to reduce selection bias.
Research results
After one-to-one propensity score matching, 169 colonoscopies were selected for each group. The cecal insertion time and ADR did not significantly differ between both groups. In trainees, ADR (25.9% vs 47.6%, P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the music than in the non-music group.
Research conclusions
The current study found that listening to music during colonoscopy did not affect procedure performance. Moreover, it suggested that music may distract trainees from appropriately detecting adenomas.
Research perspectives
A randomized study on the effect of music on colonoscopy is needed in the future.
Footnotes
Institutional review board statement: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Busan Paik Hospital and was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines stated in the Declaration of Helsinki (IRB number: 2020-01-192).
Informed consent statement: Requirement for informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board given that the researchers only retrospectively accessed a de-identified database for analysis purposes.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Peer-review started: January 5, 2023
First decision: February 15, 2023
Article in press: April 24, 2023
Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology
Country/Territory of origin: South Korea
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Ichita C, Japan; Obando A, Nicaragua S-Editor: Wang JJ L-Editor: A P-Editor: Cai YX
Contributor Information
Eun Jeong Choi, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Sam Ryong Jee, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Sang Heon Lee, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Jun Sik Yoon, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Seung Jung Yu, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Jong Hyun Lee, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Han Byul Lee, Department of Public Health, Ajou University Graduate School of Public Health, Suwon 16499, South Korea.
Sang Wook Yi, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Gangneung 25601, South Korea.
Myeong Pyo Kim, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Byung Cheol Chung, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea.
Hong Sub Lee, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Busan 47392, South Korea. hslee@paik.ac.kr.
Data sharing statement
No additional data are available.
References
- 1.Lee JH. The Effects of Music on Pain: A Meta-Analysis. J Music Ther. 2016;53:430–477. doi: 10.1093/jmt/thw012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ullmann Y, Fodor L, Schwarzberg I, Carmi N, Ullmann A, Ramon Y. The sounds of music in the operating room. Injury. 2008;39:592–597. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Anton NE, Athanasiadis DI, Karipidis T, Keen AY, Karim A, Cha J, Walke N, Stefanidis D. Surgeon stress negatively affects their non-technical skills in the operating room. Am J Surg. 2021;222:1154–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.01.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Allen K, Blascovich J. Effects of music on cardiovascular reactivity among surgeons. JAMA. 1994;272:882–884. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.El Boghdady M, Ewalds-Kvist BM. The influence of music on the surgical task performance: A systematic review. Int J Surg. 2020;73:101–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wiseman MC. The Mozart effect on task performance in a laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Innov. 2013;20:444–453. doi: 10.1177/1553350612462482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O'Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Waye JD, Schapiro M, Bond JH, Panish JF. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–1981. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ko SY, Leung DY, Wong EM. Effects of easy listening music intervention on satisfaction, anxiety, and pain in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:977–986. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S207191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ma WT, Mahadeva S, Kunanayagam S, Poi PJ, Goh KL. Colonoscopy in elderly Asians: a prospective evaluation in routine clinical practice. J Dig Dis. 2007;8:77–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-9573.2007.00289.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Çelebi D, Yılmaz E, Şahin ST, Baydur H. The effect of music therapy during colonoscopy on pain, anxiety and patient comfort: A randomized controlled trial. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020;38:101084. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2019.101084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Harikumar R, Raj M, Paul A, Harish K, Kumar SK, Sandesh K, Asharaf S, Thomas V. Listening to music decreases need for sedative medication during colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2006;25:3–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Oomens P, Fu VX, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J. The effect of music on simulated surgical performance: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2774–2784. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06868-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ardalan ZS, Vasudevan A, Hew S, Schulberg J, Lontos S. The Value of Audio Devices in the Endoscopy Room (VADER) study: a randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust. 2015;203:472–475. doi: 10.5694/mja15.01096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Nees LK, Grozinger P, Orthmann N, Rippinger N, Hennigs A, Sohn C, Domschke C, Wallwiener M, Rom J, Riedel F. The Influence of Different Genres of Music on the Performance of Medical Students on Standardized Laparoscopic Exercises. J Surg Educ. 2021;78:1709–1716. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Shih YN, Huang RH, Chiang HY. Background music: effects on attention performance. Work. 2012;42:573–578. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Way TJ, Long A, Weihing J, Ritchie R, Jones R, Bush M, Shinn JB. Effect of noise on auditory processing in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:933–938. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kurmann A, Peter M, Tschan F, Mühlemann K, Candinas D, Beldi G. Adverse effect of noise in the operating theatre on surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1021–1025. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Miskovic D, Rosenthal R, Zingg U, Oertli D, Metzger U, Jancke L. Randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of music on the virtual reality laparoscopic learning performance of novice surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2416–2420. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0040-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Belykh E, Onaka NR, Abramov IT, Yağmurlu K, Byvaltsev VA, Spetzler RF, Nakaj P, Preul MC. Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Surgical Performance: Practical Recommendations for Microsurgical Procedures in Neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2018;112:e182–e207. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, Drossel R, Mayr M, Mroß M, Scheel M, Schröder A, Gerber K, Stange G, Roll S, Gauger U, Wiedenmann B, Altenhofen L, Rosch T. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3) Gut. 2013;62:236–241. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Cai B, Liu Z, Xu Y, Wei W, Zhang S. Adenoma detection rate in 41,010 patients from Southwest China. Oncol Lett. 2015;9:2073–2077. doi: 10.3892/ol.2015.3005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lee SK, Kim TI, Shin SJ, Kim BC, Kim WH. Impact of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery on colonoscopy outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40:711–716. doi: 10.1097/00004836-200609000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jang HW, Cheon JH, Nam CM, Moon CM, Lee JH, Jeon SM, Park JJ, Kim TI, Kim WH. Factors affecting insertion time for colonoscopy performed under intramuscular analgesia in patients with history of colorectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2316–2322. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1555-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.von Renteln D, Robertson DJ, Bensen S, Pohl H. Prolonged cecal insertion time is associated with decreased adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:574–580. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Okada K, Kurita A, Takase B, Otsuka T, Kodani E, Kusama Y, Atarashi H, Mizuno K. Effects of music therapy on autonomic nervous system activity, incidence of heart failure events, and plasma cytokine and catecholamine levels in elderly patients with cerebrovascular disease and dementia. Int Heart J. 2009;50:95–110. doi: 10.1536/ihj.50.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Galińska E. Music therapy in neurological rehabilitation settings. Psychiatr Pol. 2015;49:835–846. doi: 10.12740/PP/25557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cha JM. Colonoscopy Quality is the Answer for the Emerging Issue of Interval Cancer. Intest Res. 2014;12:110–116. doi: 10.5217/ir.2014.12.2.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Church J. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42:639–657. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
No additional data are available.