Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2012
Water-aided colonoscopy: a systematic review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leung Felix W, Amato Arnaldo, Ell Christian, Friedland Shai, Harker Judith O, Hsieh Yu-Hsi, Leung Joseph W, Mann Surinder K, Paggi Silvia, Pohl Jürgen, Radaelli Franco, Ramirez Francisco C, Siao-Salera Rodelei, Terruzzi Vittorio
Аннотация
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.
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.