BACKGROUND: A water method developed to attenuate discomfort during colonoscopy enhanced cecal intubation in unsedated patients. Serendipitously a numerically increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) was noted. OBJECTIVE: To explore databases of sedated patients examined by the air and water methods to identify hypothesis-generating findings. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: VA endoscopy center. PATIENTS: creening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: From 1/2000-6/2006 the air method was used - judicious air insufflation to permit visualization of the lumen to aid colonoscope insertion and water spray for washing mucosal surfaces. From 6/2006-11/2009 the water method was adopted - warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation and suction removal of residual air to aid colonoscope insertion. During colonoscope withdrawal adequate air was insufflated to distend the colonic lumen for inspection, biopsy and polypectomy in a similar fashion in both periods. Main outcome measurements: ADR. RESULTS: The air (n=683) vs. water (n=495) method comparisons revealed significant differences in overall ADR 26.8% (183 of 683) vs. 34.9% (173 of 495) and ADR of adenomas >9 mm, 7.2% vs. 13.7%, respectively (both P<0.05, Fisher's exact test). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized data susceptible to bias by unmeasured parameters unrelated to the methods. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of the serendipitous observation of an impact of the water method on ADR provides impetus to call for randomized controlled trials to test hypotheses related to the water method as an approach to improving adenoma detection. Because of recent concerns over missed lesions during colonoscopy, the provocative hypothesis-generating observations warrant presentation.
BACKGROUND: A water method developed to attenuate discomfort during colonoscopy enhanced cecal intubation in unsedated patients. Serendipitously a numerically increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) was noted. OBJECTIVE: To explore databases of sedated patients examined by the air and water methods to identify hypothesis-generating findings. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: VA endoscopy center. PATIENTS: creening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: From 1/2000-6/2006 the air method was used - judicious air insufflation to permit visualization of the lumen to aid colonoscope insertion and water spray for washing mucosal surfaces. From 6/2006-11/2009 the water method was adopted - warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation and suction removal of residual air to aid colonoscope insertion. During colonoscope withdrawal adequate air was insufflated to distend the colonic lumen for inspection, biopsy and polypectomy in a similar fashion in both periods. Main outcome measurements: ADR. RESULTS: The air (n=683) vs. water (n=495) method comparisons revealed significant differences in overall ADR 26.8% (183 of 683) vs. 34.9% (173 of 495) and ADR of adenomas >9 mm, 7.2% vs. 13.7%, respectively (both P<0.05, Fisher's exact test). LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized data susceptible to bias by unmeasured parameters unrelated to the methods. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of the serendipitous observation of an impact of the water method on ADR provides impetus to call for randomized controlled trials to test hypotheses related to the water method as an approach to improving adenoma detection. Because of recent concerns over missed lesions during colonoscopy, the provocative hypothesis-generating observations warrant presentation.
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Nirav Shah; Kevin D Mullen; D R Ferguson; Charles Thomas; Arthur J McCullough Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Fnu Deepinder; Prashanthi N Thota; Rocio Lopez; Carol A Burke Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J E East; M Stavrindis; S Thomas-Gibson; T Guenther; P P Tekkis; B P Saunders Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Maria Pellisé; Glòria Fernández-Esparrach; Andrés Cárdenas; Oriol Sendino; Elena Ricart; Eva Vaquero; Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Cristina Rodríguez de Miguel; Michel Zabalza; Angels Ginès; Josep M Piqué; Josep Llach; Antoni Castells Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Joseph W Leung; Surinder K Mann; Rodelei Siao-Salera; Kanat Ransibrahmanakul; Brian Lim; Hazel Cabrera; Wilhemina Canete; Paul Barredo; Rebeck Gutierrez; Felix W Leung Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Christopher D Wells; Russell I Heigh; Virender K Sharma; Michael D Crowell; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Jonathan A Leighton; Nora Mattek; David E Fleischer Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2007-06-08 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Fw Leung; Jo Harker; Jw Leung; Rm Siao-Salera; Sk Mann; Fc Ramirez; S Friedland; A Amato; F Radaelli; S Paggi; V Terruzzi; Yh Hsieh Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2011-07-01
Authors: Fw Leung; Jo Harker; Jw Leung; Rm Siao-Salera; Sk Mann; Fc Ramirez; S Friedland; A Amato; F Radaelli; S Paggi; V Terruzzi; Yh Hsieh Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2011-07-01
Authors: Donald J Portocarrero; Kendrick Che; Snorri Olafsson; Michael H Walter; Christian S Jackson; Felix W Leung; Ariel Malamud Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2012-01-01