BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is widely used for management of colorectal diseases. A history of abdominal or pelvic surgery is a well-recognized factor associated with difficult colonoscopy. Although water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) was effective in small groups of male U.S. veterans with such a history, its application in other cultural settings is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the application of WEC in such patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, patient-blinded study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center in China. PATIENTS: Outpatients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery undergoing unsedated diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to examination by either WEC or conventional air colonoscopy (AC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cecal intubation rate. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 55) or AC (n = 55) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.7% vs 76.4%; P = .033). The maximum pain scores (± standard deviation) were 2.1 ± 1.8 (WEC) and 4.6 ± 1.7 (AC), respectively (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that the colonoscopy method was the only independent predictor of failed colonoscopy (odds ratio 11.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.35-97.09). A higher proportion of patients examined by WEC would be willing to have a repeat unsedated colonoscopy (90.9% vs 72.7%, P = .013). LIMITATIONS: Single center; unblinded but experienced endoscopists. CONCLUSION: This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the water exchange method significantly enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. The lower pain scores and higher proportion accepting repeat of the unsedated option suggest that WEC is promising. It may enhances compliance with colonoscopy in specific populations. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01485133.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is widely used for management of colorectal diseases. A history of abdominal or pelvic surgery is a well-recognized factor associated with difficult colonoscopy. Although water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) was effective in small groups of male U.S. veterans with such a history, its application in other cultural settings is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the application of WEC in such patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, patient-blinded study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center in China. PATIENTS: Outpatients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery undergoing unsedated diagnostic, screening, or surveillance colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to examination by either WEC or conventional air colonoscopy (AC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cecal intubation rate. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 55) or AC (n = 55) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.7% vs 76.4%; P = .033). The maximum pain scores (± standard deviation) were 2.1 ± 1.8 (WEC) and 4.6 ± 1.7 (AC), respectively (P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that the colonoscopy method was the only independent predictor of failed colonoscopy (odds ratio 11.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.35-97.09). A higher proportion of patients examined by WEC would be willing to have a repeat unsedated colonoscopy (90.9% vs 72.7%, P = .013). LIMITATIONS: Single center; unblinded but experienced endoscopists. CONCLUSION: This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the water exchange method significantly enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. The lower pain scores and higher proportion accepting repeat of the unsedated option suggest that WEC is promising. It may enhances compliance with colonoscopy in specific populations. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01485133.).
Authors: Volker Moritz; Michael Bretthauer; Øyvind Holme; Morten Wang Fagerland; Magnus Løberg; Tom Glomsaker; Thomas de Lange; Birgitte Seip; Per Sandvei; Geir Hoff Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Sergio Cadoni; Mauro Liggi; Premysl Falt; Stefano Sanna; Mariangela Argiolas; Viviana Fanari; Paolo Gallittu; Donatella Mura; Maria L Porcedda; Vit Smajstrla; Matteo Erriu; Felix W Leung Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-01-25