Literature DB >> 22898423

Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review.

Felix W Leung1, Arnaldo Amato, Christian Ell, Shai Friedland, Judith O Harker, Yu-Hsi Hsieh, Joseph W Leung, Surinder K Mann, Silvia Paggi, Jürgen Pohl, Franco Radaelli, Francisco C Ramirez, Rodelei Siao-Salera, Vittorio Terruzzi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Water-aided methods for colonoscopy are distinguished by the timing of removal of infused water, predominantly during withdrawal (water immersion) or during insertion (water exchange).
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the impact of these approaches on colonoscopy pain and adenoma detection rate (ADR).
DESIGN: Systematic review.
SETTING: Randomized, controlled trial (RCT) that compared water-aided methods and air insufflation during colonoscope insertion. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Medline, PubMed, and Google searches (January 2008-December 2011) and personal communications of manuscripts in press were considered to identify appropriate RCTs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pain during colonoscopy and ADR. RCTs were grouped according to whether water immersion or water exchange was used. Reported pain scores and ADR were tabulated based on group assignment.
RESULTS: Pain during colonoscopy is significantly reduced by both water immersion and water exchange compared with traditional air insufflation. The reduction in pain scores was qualitatively greater with water exchange as compared with water immersion. A mixed pattern of increases and decreases in ADR was observed with water immersion. A higher ADR, especially proximal to the splenic flexure, was obtained when water exchange was implemented. LIMITATIONS: Differences in the reports limit application of meta-analysis. The inability to blind the colonoscopists exposed the observations to uncertain bias.
CONCLUSION: Compared with air insufflation, both water immersion and water exchange significantly reduce colonoscopy pain. Water exchange may be superior to water immersion in minimizing colonoscopy discomfort and in increasing ADR. A head-to-head comparison of these 3 approaches is required.
Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22898423     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.04.467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  43 in total

1.  Impact of water exchange colonoscopy on serum sodium and potassium levels: an observational study.

Authors:  Joseph W Leung; Rodelei Siao-Salera; Ovanes Abramyan; Surinder K Mann; Gregory Ward; Andrew Yen; Rebeck Gutierrez; Felix W Leung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Complications during colonoscopy: prevention, diagnosis, and management.

Authors:  R Manta; F Tremolaterra; A Arezzo; M Verra; G Galloro; L Dioscoridi; F Pugliese; A Zullo; M Mutignani; G Bassotti
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  Editorial: Polyps, Pain, and Propofol: Is Water Exchange the Panacea for All?

Authors:  Piet C de Groen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Basil Al-Awabdy; C Mel Wilcox
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-01-16

5.  Water Exchange Method Significantly Improves Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Hui Jia; Yanglin Pan; Xuegang Guo; Lina Zhao; Xiangping Wang; Linhui Zhang; Tao Dong; Hui Luo; Zhizheng Ge; Jun Liu; Jianyu Hao; Ping Yao; Yao Zhang; Hongyu Ren; Weizhen Zhou; Yujie Guo; Wei Zhang; Xiaolin Chen; Dayong Sun; Xiaoqiang Yang; Xiaoyu Kang; Na Liu; Zhiguo Liu; Felix Leung; Kaichun Wu; Daiming Fan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  The water exchange method for colonoscopy-effect of coaching.

Authors:  Fw Leung; R Cheung; Rs Fan; Ls Fischer; S Friedland; Sb Ho; Yh Hsieh; I Hung; Mk Li; S Matsui; Kr McQuaid; G Ohning; A Ojuri; T Sato; Ak Shergill; Ma Shoham; Tc Simons; Mh Walter; A Yen
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-01

Review 7.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

8.  Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Reena V Chokshi; Christine E Hovis; Graham A Colditz; Dayna S Early; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Quality colonoscopy: a matter of time, technique or technology?

Authors:  Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Development of a murine colonoscopic polypectomy model (with videos).

Authors:  Furkan Ertem; Wan-Mohaiza Dashwood; Praveen Rajendran; Gottumukkala Raju; Asif Rashid; Roderick Dashwood
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 9.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.