Water immersion simplifies cecal intubation in patients with redundant colons and previous incomplete colonoscopies

Strategies, Technologies, and Tips for Successful Cecal Intubation

Successful cecal intubation is crucial in ensuring a complete evaluation of the colonic mucosa. Although completion of colonoscopies should be successful in close to 100% of all examinations in the hands of experienced gastroenterologists, there are some patients with colons which can be difficult to navigate. Factors such as older age, presence of diverticular disease, as well as high or low body mass index can present challenges for endoscopists. Challenges can be divided into those that are left sided and are associated with severe angulations of the colon versus those that are right sided and present as redundant colons. Both require different strategies to achieve completion. This review will cover methods, technologies as well the evolution of colonoscope insertion tubes which can help in navigating colons, especially those that are challenging. There will also be a discussion about basic principles and techniques that should be employed in all colonoscopies.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR.

METHODS

Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements.

RESULTS

In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Novel rigidizing overtube for colonoscope stabilization and loop prevention (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Loop formation can impede endoscope advancement, destabilize the tip, and cause pain. Strategies to mitigate looping include torque-based reduction maneuvers, variable stiffness shafts, and abdominal splinting. In some cases, these strategies are insufficient, and there is need for novel instruments. Loop formation is of particular concern in colonoscopy, but it can also impact performance of other endoscopic procedures such as enteroscopy and altered-anatomy ERCP. In this case series we demonstrate the utility of a novel rigidizing overtube (Pathfinder; Neptune Medical, Burlingame, Calif, USA) in colonoscopy and other endoscopic procedures where loop management is critical.

METHODS

We describe our initial experience with the Pathfinder overtube in 29 patients. The overtube is 85 cm long and can accommodate a pediatric colonoscope. In its native state, the overtube is extremely flexible. Once the overtube is advanced to the desired location, application of a vacuum to the device causes the device to become 15 times stiffer. The endoscope can then be advanced through the overtube without loop formation in the region that the overtube traverses.

RESULTS

The overtube was used in 29 patients to assist with difficult procedures. Patients were predominantly men (n = 18; 62.1%), with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, 57-72). One patient received an upper endoscopy (3.4%), 24 received colonoscopy (82.8%), and 4 received enteroscopy (13.8%). The overtube was used in 12 procedures for incomplete colonoscopy (41.4%), 6 for depth (20.7%), and 11 for stability (37.9%). Colonoscopy was performed in the setting of screening (n = 3), surveillance given polyp history (n = 7), referrals for polyp removal (n = 10), workup of iron deficiency anemia (n = 2), and incomplete colonoscopy (n = 1). The lower endoscopy cases had a median cecal intubation time of 5 minutes (interquartile range, 4.25-7). Enteroscopy was performed in 4 patients: In one patient the distal 60 cm of the ileum was examined with a pediatric colonoscope to exclude ileitis, in another the overtube was used to stabilize a 6-mm endoscope to traverse a tight Crohn's ileocolonic stricture, in a third patient altered-anatomy ERCP was performed using an enteroscope through the overtube to reach a hepaticojejunostomy, and in the final patient upper enteroscopy was performed and the mid-jejunum was reached. We present 4 cases that demonstrate the use of the overtube. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial experience with a novel rigidizing overtube suggests that this tool can be useful in colonoscopy and other endoscopic procedures affected by looping.

Room temperature water infusion during colonoscopy insertion induces rectosigmoid colon mucus production

BACKGROUND

Water filling during colonoscopy improves several colonoscopy outcomes. We evaluated an anecdotal observation that room temperature water filling during colonoscope insertion results in mucus production in the left colon, which may impair mucosal visualization during withdrawal.

METHODS

We performed 55 colonoscopies with either water or saline filling during insertion, and video recorded the examinations. Three blinded observers scored the amount of mucus visible on the video recordings.

RESULTS

29 patients had water filling and 26 patients had saline filling during insertion. Demographic features, procedure indications, volume of infused fluid, and insertion time to the cecum were similar in the two groups. All three blinded observers rated the mucus as greater after water filling than after saline (median 3 out of 5 vs. 1 out of 5; P < 0.001), with a kappa value for interobserver agreement of 0.364 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Room temperature water filling is associated with mucus production by the rectosigmoid colon, requiring additional cleansing during withdrawal.

Current status of water-assisted colonoscopy

Compared with the traditional air insufflation method, water-assisted colonoscopy has many advantages in clinical application with regard to reduced abdominal pain, increased cecal intubation rate, increased detection rate of colon adenoma, and increased complete resection rate of larger polyps. It has gradually attracted more and more attention both in China and other countries. The aim of this article is to elaborate the invention, development, and therapeutic applications of water-assisted colonoscopy, as well as its advantages and shortcomings.

Colonoscopic techniques in polyp detection: An Egyptian study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is defined as the percentage of colonoscopies in which one or more polyps are detected, and has been shown to be highly correlated with the adenoma detection rate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the PDR at the Endoscopy Unit of the Kasr Al-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Egypt, through the i-SCAN, Endocuff, and underwater colonoscopy techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on 100 Egyptian subjects over 50 years of age. Their polyp detection rate was measured through 4 different colonoscopic techniques. An equal number of patients were divided into 4 groups: i-SCAN, Endocuff, underwater colonoscopy, and controls. The control group was examined using standard white light colonoscopy. The colonoscopy evaluation included the type of agent utilized for bowel preparation, preparation grade, and colonoscopy withdrawal time.

RESULTS

The general PDR was 48%. The i-SCAN technique had the highest rate (56%), followed by the underwater (52%) and the Endocuff (48%) techniques.

CONCLUSION

The i-SCAN and underwater colonoscopy techniques produced higher PDR than the Endocuff-assisted and standard techniques, but with no statistical significance.

Covid-19 pandemic impact on colonoscopy service and suggestions for managing recovery

Background and aim  As the post-peak phase of the epidemic is approaching, there is an urgent need of an action plan to help resume endoscopy activity. To manage the Covid-19 pandemic-imposed backlog of postponed colonoscopy examinations, an efficient approach is needed. The practice of on-demand sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opiates will allow most patients to complete a water-aided examination with minimal or no sedation. Other methods reported to minimize patient discomfort during colonoscopy can be used, in addition to water-aided techniques. Unsedated or minimally sedated patients who do not require recovery or require a shorter one allow rapid turnaround. The practice obviates the need for assistance with deep sedation from anesthesiologists, who may be in short supply. Trainee education in water-aided colonoscopy has been demonstrated to confer benefits. This review provides some insights into the impact of Covid-19 on endoscopy services, challenges ahead, and possible solutions to help recovery of colonoscopy work and training.

Performance of radiographic imaging after incomplete colonoscopy for nonmalignant causes in clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

CT colonography (CTC) or barium enema are commonly ordered to complete colorectal imaging after an incomplete colonoscopy. We evaluated the sensitivity of radiographic studies performed for this purpose in clinical practice outside clinical trials.

METHODS

Adult patients referred to an expert endoscopist for incomplete colonoscopy because of a redundant colon or a difficult sigmoid and who underwent previous radiographic imaging between July 2001 and July 2019 were identified. None of the patients had a malignant obstruction as the cause of incomplete colonoscopy. Data on polyp size, location, and pathology were obtained from colonoscopy and radiology reports. Polyps identified on imaging and colonoscopy were matched based on polyp size and location.

RESULTS

Among 769 patients referred for incomplete colonoscopy, we identified 65 with a radiographic examination performed within 36 months of colonoscopy at our center. Per-patient sensitivity for CTC was suboptimal (70%) and was very low for barium enema (26.7%). Per-polyp sensitivity for both CTC and barium enema was poor (23.8% and 7.6%). Quality of the examination did not seem to affect procedure sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiographic imaging after incomplete colonoscopy for reasons other than malignant obstruction had poor sensitivity for polyps. Patients with incomplete colonoscopies should be considered for repeat colonoscopy by an expert.

When Experts Fail: Use of a Short Turning Radius Colonoscope Facilitates Successful Completion of Colonoscopy in Patients with Bowel Fixity

BACKGROUND

Rates of incomplete colonoscopy in non-expert settings range up to 13%. Expert colonoscopists can complete ~ 95% colonoscopies when other endoscopists fail; however, a small number remain incomplete even in expert hands, typically due to bowel fixity.

AIMS

Pentax Retroview™ (EC-3490TLi) is a new slim colonoscope with a short turning radius (STR) and greater tip deflection (210°), which allows easy maneuverability across sharply angulated/fixed colonic bends. We evaluated the utility of this colonoscope for completing colonoscopies that fail even in the hands of expert colonoscopists.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed, and main outcomes measured included cecal intubation rate, lesions detected, dosage of sedation used, and complications.

RESULTS

Using the STR colonoscope, complete colonoscopy to the cecum was possible in 34/37 patients (91.9%). No loss of lumen/blind advancement was necessary in any of the procedures. No adverse events occurred. Among the completed colonoscopies, 6/34 (17.6%) patients had adenomas, all proximal to the site of prior failure, including one advanced adenoma. All failures (n = 3, 8.1%) had a history of cancer surgeries, with peritoneal carcinomatosis/extensively fixed/frozen bowel (two patients) and an additional diverticular stricture with colo-vesical fistula (one patient).

CONCLUSION

STR colonoscope facilitates completion of a high proportion (91.9%) of colonoscopies that previously failed in expert hands. Its STR allows easy maneuverability across segments of sharp angulation with bowel fixity without need for blind advancement. The use of this colonoscope led to the detection of adenomas in 17.6% of patients, all proximal to the site of prior failed colonoscopy.

Creation of a score to predict risk of high conscious sedation requirements in patients undergoing endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The administration of intravenous conscious sedation to patients undergoing GI endoscopy carries a risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Our study aim was to create a score that stratifies the risk of occurrence of either high-dose conscious sedation requirements or a failed procedure.

METHODS

Patients receiving endoscopy via endoscopist-directed conscious sedation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of sedation failure, which was defined as one of the following: (1) high-dose sedation, (2) the need for benzodiazepine/narcotic reversal agents, (3) nurse-documented poor patient tolerance to the procedure, or (4) aborted procedure. High-dose sedation was defined as >10 mg of midazolam and/or >200 μg of fentanyl or the meperidine equivalent. Patients with sedation failure (n = 488) were matched to controls (n = 976) without a sedation failure by endoscopist and endoscopy date.

RESULTS

Significant associations with sedation failure were identified for age, sex, nonclonazepam benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, or both). Based on these 5 variables, we created the high conscious sedation requirements (HCSR) score, which predicted the risk of sedation failure with an area under the curve of 0.70. Compared with the patients with a risk score of 0, risk of a sedation failure was highest for patients with a score ≥3.5 (odds ratio, 17.31; P = 2 × 10^-14). Estimated area under the curve of the HCSR score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.72) in a validation series of 250 cases and 250 controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The HCSR risk score, based on 5 key patient and procedure characteristics, can function as a useful tool for physicians when discussing sedation options with patients before endoscopy.

The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial

Background and study aims  The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants' comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods  This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO 2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO 2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO 2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion  This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870.

The advantages of water immersion colonoscopy in ambulatory service

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare patients' discomfort during water immersion (WI) colonoscopy without sedation or available on request, with that of patients during air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy with sedation, in the ambulatory setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in 100 patients who performed a colonoscopy between August 2015 and February 2016 in an Ambulatory Gastroenterology Center in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. They were divided into two branches A and B. Patients in Group A underwent a classic colonoscopy with AI and standard sedation (2 mg of midazolam and 50 mg of tramadol), while patients in Group B underwent an unsedated or on demand sedation colonoscopy with WI technique.

RESULTS

The patients in group A presented a higher discomfort (statistically significant) compared to those in group B, and had also the median total discomfort score higher than those in group B. The patients in group A had also a higher discomfort score after examination. The total time of examination was the same in the two groups, but in group B the progression to cecum time was 3 minutes lower than for those in group A. A greater discomfort of the patient was correlated with the longer time required to reach the cecum.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, WI colonoscopy is superior to AI technique in reducing insertion pain, progression-to-cecum time, minimizing sedation requirements and also in the willingness to repeat the technique.

Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.

Results

Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO₂-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference.

Conclusions

WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Is water exchange superior to water immersion for colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Recently, water exchange (WE) instead of water immersion (WI) for colonoscopy has been proposed to decrease pain and improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to assess whether WE is superior to WI based on the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

We searched studies from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Only RCTs were eligible for our study. The pooled risk ratios (RRs), pooled mean difference (MD), and pooled 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model based on heterogeneity.

Results

Five RCTs consisting of 2229 colonoscopies were included in this study. WE was associated with a significantly higher ADR than WI (RR = 1.18; CI = 1.05-1.32; P = 0.004), especially in right colon (RR = 1.31; CI = 1.07-1.61; P = 0.01). Compared with WI, WE was confirmed with lower pain score, higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, but more infused water during insertion. There was no statistical difference between WE and WI in cecal intubation rate and the number of patients who had willingness to repeat the examination. Furthermore, both total procedure time and cecal intubation time in WE were significantly longer than that in WI (MD = 2.66; CI = 1.42-3.90; P < 0.0001; vs MD = 4.58; CI = 4.01-5.15; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports the hypothesis that WE is superior to WI in improving ADR, attenuating insertion pain and providing better bowel cleansing, but inferior in time and consumption of infused water consumption during insertion.

Difficult colonoscopy: air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation?

Background/Aims

This study aimed to compare tolerance to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation in patients with anticipated difficult colonoscopy (young, thin, obese individuals, and patients with prior abdominal surgery or irradiation).

Methods

Patients with body mass index (BMI) less than 18 kg/m² or more than 30 kg/m², or who had undergone previous abdominal or pelvic surgeries were randomized to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation during colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation with mild pain (less than 5 on visual analogue scale [VAS]), without use of sedation.

Results

The primary end point was achieved in 32.7%, 43.8%, and 84.9% of cases with air, carbon dioxide and water insufflation (P<0.001). The mean pain scores were 5.17, 4.72, and 3.93 on the VAS for air, carbon dioxide, and water insufflation (P<0.001). The cecal intubation rate or procedure time did not differ significantly between the 3 groups.

Conclusions

Water insufflation was superior to air or carbon dioxide for pain tolerance. This was seen in the subgroups with BMI <18 kg/m² and the post-surgical group, but not in the group with BMI >30 kg/m².

Effect of left lateral tilt-down position on cecal intubation time: a 2-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy insertion is technically challenging, time-consuming, and painful, especially for the sigmoid. Several pilot studies indicated that the (left) tilt-down position could facilitate the insertion procedure, but no formal trials have been published to demonstrate its efficacy. We performed this study to verify the benefits of the left lateral tilt-down position (LTDP) on the insertion process.

METHODS

This 2-center prospective trial randomized unsedated patients to the LTDP or left lateral horizontal position (LHP) to aid insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcome measures included decending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of insertion, acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy for future examinations, difficulty score for insertion, and the adverse event rate of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized to the LTDP (128) or LHP (130) in 2 centers. The median CIT and DIT were shorter with patients positioned in LTDP than in LHP (CIT, 280.0 vs 339.5 s, P < .001; DIT, 53.0 vs 69.0 s, P < .001, respectively) and patients with high and low body mass index (BMI) benefited more from LTDP than from LHP, as opposed to patients with normal BMI. In addition, colonoscopy insertion in LTDP was less painful (3.4 ± 1.6 vs 4.0 ± 1.7, P = .02) and less difficult (3.1 ± 1.9 vs 3.7 ± 1.4, P < .001), showing a higher tendency to acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy (82.9% vs 73.8%, P = .08). The rates of adverse events were extremely low and did not differ significantly in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LTDP for colonoscopy insertion can reduce insertion time and pain, and potentially improves patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02842489.).

High Efficacy of Repeating Colonoscopy by an Advanced Endoscopist after an Incomplete Colonoscopy

Background and Aims

This study aims to evaluate the role of an advanced endoscopist to study the entire colon after an incomplete colonoscopy.

Methods

All patients with an elective incomplete colonoscopy performed under deep sedation in our department between January 2010 and October 2016 were included. Patients with a colonic stenosis, an inadequate bowel preparation, or a colonoscopy performed without deep sedation were excluded. Included patients were followed up to evaluate if and what type of subsequent examinations (colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist, single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE], and/or CT colonography) was performed to complete the study of the entire colon. Lesions found during these subsequent examinations were also recorded.

Results

Ninety-three patients had an incomplete colonoscopy, with no diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and a high-risk polyp rate of 5.4% (n = 5). Seventy-seven patients with incomplete colonoscopies underwent subsequent examinations, namely CT colonography in 45.5% (n = 35), colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist in 53.2% (n = 41), and SBE in 13% (n = 10). In the 49 patients who performed either colonoscopy (n = 39) or SBE (n = 10) by an advanced endoscopist, the cecal intubation rate was 100%, and high-risk polyps were found in 26.5% (n = 13) and CRC in 4.1%. CT colonography revealed findings consistent with polyps and CRC in 22.9% (n = 8) and 2.9% (n = 1) of the cases, respectively. Colonoscopy was further repeated in 6 patients with suspected polyps in CT colonography, confirming the initial diagnosis in 5 patients.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy by an advanced endoscopist achieved cecal intubation in all patients, representing a good choice after an incomplete colonoscopy.

Development and validation of an algorithm to complete colonoscopy using standard endoscopes in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Incomplete colonoscopy may occur as a result of colon angulation (adhesions or diverticulosis), endoscope looping, or both. Specialty endoscopes/devices have been shown to successfully complete prior incomplete colonoscopies, but may not be widely available. Radiographic or other image-based evaluations have been shown to be effective but may miss small or flat lesions, and colonoscopy is often still indicated if a large lesion is identified. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm to determine the optimum endoscope to ensure completion of the examination in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a prospective cohort study of 175 patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy who were referred to a single endoscopist at a single academic medical center over a 3-year period from 2012 through 2015. Colonoscopy outcomes from the initial 50 patients were used to develop an algorithm to determine the optimal standard endoscope and technique to achieve cecal intubation. The algorithm was validated on the subsequent 125 patients.

RESULTS

 The overall repeat colonoscopy success rate using a standard endoscope was 94 %. The initial standard endoscope specified by the algorithm was used and completed the colonoscopy in 90 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

 This study identifies an effective strategy for completing colonoscopy in patients with prior incomplete examination, using widely available standard endoscopes and an algorithm based on patient characteristics and reasons for prior incomplete colonoscopy.

Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR), defined as the proportion of patients with at least one adenoma of any size, is a quality indicator. We tested the hypothesis that water exchange (WE) improves ADR but water immersion (WI) has no adverse effect on ADR compared with air insufflation (AI).

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted at the Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital in southern Taiwan and the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital in eastern Taiwan on patients randomly assigned to WE, WI, or AI with stratification by the 3 study colonoscopists. The primary outcome was ADR.

RESULTS

From July 2013 to December 2015, 651 patients were recruited and randomized into 3 groups with a 1:1:1 ratio (217 patients per group). Overall, ADR met quality standards: WE 49.8% (95% CI, 43.2%-56.4%), AI 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-44.4%), and WI 40.6% (95% CI, 34.2%-47.2%). Compared with AI, WE significantly increased ADR (P = .016). There was no difference between WI and WE. ADRs of WI and AI were comparable. Compared with AI, WE confirmed a longer insertion time, higher cleanliness score, but similar adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) and withdrawal time with polypectomy. Subgroup analysis found WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that age ≥50 years, WE (vs AI), colonoscopy indication, no previous history of colonoscopy, and withdrawal time >8 minutes were significant predictors of increased ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Confirmation of prior reports showing WE, but not WI, increased ADR further strengthened the validity of our observations. WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients. The outcome differences justify assessment of the role of WE in colorectal cancer prevention. Similar APPC and withdrawal times suggest that adequate inspection was performed on colonoscope withdrawal in each of the study arms. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01894191.).

The correlation between diverticulosis and redundant colon

BACKGROUND

Diverticulosis and redundant colon are colonic conditions for which underlying pathophysiology, management and prevention are poorly understood. Historical papers suggest an inverse relationship between these two conditions. However, no further attempt has been made to validate this relationship. This study set out to assess the correlation between diverticulosis and colonic redundancy.

METHODS

Redundant colon, diverticulosis and patient demographics were recorded during colonoscopy. Multivariate binary logistic regression was performed with redundant colon as the dependent variable and age, gender and diverticulosis as independent variables. Nagelkerke R ² and a receiver operator curve were calculated to assess goodness of fit and internally validate the multivariate model.

RESULTS

Redundant colon and diverticulosis were diagnosed in 31 and 113 patients, respectively. The probability of redundant colon was increased by female gender odds ratio (OR) 8.4 (95% CI 2.7-26, p = 0.00020) and increasing age OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.017). Paradoxically, diverticulosis strongly reduced the probability of redundant colon with OR of 0.12 (95% CI 0.42-0.32, p = 0.000039). The Nagelkerke R ² for the multivariate model was 0.29 and the area under the curve at ROC analysis was 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.90 p-value 3.1 × 10^-8).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found an inverse correlation between redundant colon and diverticulosis, supporting the historical suggestion that the two conditions rarely occur concurrently. The underlying principle for this relationship remains to be found. However, it may contribute to the understanding of the aetiology and pathophysiology of these colonic conditions.

Alternatives to Incomplete Colonoscopy

A thorough and complete colonoscopy is critically important in preventing colorectal cancer. Factors associated with difficult and incomplete colonoscopy include a poor bowel preparation, severe diverticulosis, redundant colon, looping, adhesions, young and female patients, patient discomfort, and the expertise of the endoscopist. For difficult colonoscopy, focusing on bowel preparation techniques, appropriate sedation and adjunct techniques such as water immersion, abdominal pressure techniques, and patient positioning can overcome many of these challenges. Occasionally, these fail and other alternatives to incomplete colonoscopy have to be considered. If patients have low risk of polyps, then noninvasive imaging options such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) colonography can be considered. Novel applications such as Colon Capsule™ and Check-Cap are also emerging. In patients in whom a clinically significant lesion is noted on a noninvasive imaging test or if they are at a higher risk of having polyps, balloon-assisted colonoscopy can be performed with either a single- or double-balloon enteroscope or colonoscope. The application of these techniques enables complete colonoscopic examination in the vast majority of patients.

Regional center for complex colonoscopy: yield of neoplasia in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Incomplete colonoscopy increases the risk of incident proximal colon cancer postcolonoscopy. Incomplete colonoscopy is often followed by barium enema or CT colonography. We sought to describe the yield of completion colonoscopy in a regional center for complex colonoscopy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 520 consecutive patients referred to a single colonoscopist over a 14-year period for completion colonoscopy after a previous incomplete examination.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy was completed to the cecum in 506 of 520 patients (97.3%). A total of 913 conventional adenomas was removed in 277 patients (adenoma detection rate 53.3%). There were 184 adenomas ≥ 1 cm in size or with advanced pathology. There were 525 serrated-class lesions removed in 175 patients, including 54 sessile serrated polyps in 26 patients and 41 hyperplastic polyps greater than 1 cm in 26 patients. Nine colorectal cancers were found. We estimated that approximately 57% of the conventional adenomas, 58% of the sessile serrated polyps, 27% of the hyperplastic polyps, and all 9 cancers detected by the completion colonoscopy were beyond the extent of the previous examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of completion colonoscopy in a cohort of patients with previous failed cecal intubation was substantial. Regional centers for complex colonoscopy can provide high rates of cecal intubation in cases of incomplete colonoscopy and high yields of lesions in these cases. The regional center for complex colonoscopy is an important medical service.

Water-Aided Colonoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients-A Randomised, Single-Centre Trial

BACKGROUND

Water-aided colonoscope insertion reduces patients' discomfort and need for sedation in unsedated and minimally sedated patients. However, water-aided technique has never been studied in inflammatory bowel disease patients, characterised by younger age, structural changes of the colon and need for repeated colonoscopies. Our trial was designed to evaluate discomfort associated with water-aided colonoscopy compared with air insufflation in on-demand sedated patients with known inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

In a randomised, single-centre study, 92 patients were randomised to either water-aided insertion and air insufflation during withdrawal [Water] or air insufflation during both insertion and withdrawal [Air]. The main outcome measured was success rate of unsedated colonoscopy, defined as reaching the caecum without requiring sedation and with discomfort during insertion of less than or equal to 5 using 0-10 continuous scale [0 = none, 10 = maximum pain].

RESULTS

Success rate of caecal intubation without sedation or invoking a discomfort score greater than 5 was significantly higher in the Water arm compared with the Air arm [73.9 vs 45.7%, p = 0.01]. Discomfort score during insertion [mean ± SD] was significantly lower in the Water than in the Air arm [3.8±2.4 vs 5.4±1.9, p < 0.001]. Other outcomes including procedural times, success rate of terminal ileum intubation, need for abdominal compression, and repositioning were comparable. There were no complications recorded in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with air insufflation, water-aided colonoscopy significantly reduces discomfort in on-demand sedated patients with inflammatory bowel disease, achieving comparable procedural outcomes.

Left-colon water exchange preserves the benefits of whole colon water exchange at reduced cecal intubation time conferring significant advantage in diagnostic colonoscopy - a prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Whole-colon water exchange (WWE) reduces insertion pain, increases cecal intubation success and adenoma detection rate, but requires longer insertion time, compared to air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy. We hypothesized that water exchange limited to the left colon (LWE) can speed up insertion with equivalent results.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled study (NCT01735266) allocated patients (18-80 years) to WWE, LWE or AI group (1:1:1). The primary outcome was cecal intubation time.

RESULTS

Three hundred subjects were randomized to the WWE (n = 100), LWE (n = 100) or AI group (n = 100). Ninety-four to ninety-five per cent of patients underwent diagnostic colonoscopy. Baseline characteristics were balanced. The median insertion time was shorter in LWE group (4.8 min (95%CI: 3.2-6.2)) than those in WWE (7.5 min (95%CI: 6.0-10.3)) and AI (6.4 min (95%CI: 4.2-9.8)) (both p < 0.001) groups. The cecal intubation rates in unsedated patients of the two water exchange methods (WWE 99%, LWE 99%) were significantly higher than that (89.8%) in AI group (p = 0.01). The final success rates were comparable among the three groups after sedation was given. Maximum pain scores and number of patients needing abdominal compression between WWE and LWE groups were comparable, both lower than those in AI group (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed regarding PDR, although the PDR in right colon tended to be higher in WWE group.

CONCLUSION

By preserving the benefits of WWE and reducing insertion time, LWE is appropriate for diagnostic colonoscopy, especially in settings with tight scheduling of patients. The higher PDR in the right colon in WWE group deserves to be further investigated.

Diagnostic and therapeutic applications of water-immersion colonoscopy

Colonoscopy techniques combining or replacing air insufflation with water infusion are becoming increasingly popular. They were originally designed to reduce colonic spasms, facilitate cecal intubation, and lower patient discomfort and the need for sedation. These maneuvers straighten the rectosigmoid colon and enable the colonoscope to be inserted deeply without causing looping of the colon. Water-immersion colonoscopy minimizes colonic distension and improves visibility by introducing a small amount of water. In addition, since pain during colonoscopy indicates risk of bowel perforation and sedation masks this important warning, this method has the potential to be the favored insertion technique because it promotes patient safety without sedation. Recently, this water-immersion method has not only been used for colonoscope insertion, but has also been applied to therapy for sigmoid volvulus, removal of lesions, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and therapeutic diagnosis of abnormal bowel morphology and irritable bowel syndrome. Although a larger sample size and prospective head-to-head-designed studies will be needed, this review focuses on the usefulness of water-immersion colonoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Water-aided colonoscopy

The successful intubation of the cecum during screening or surveillance colonoscopy is vital to ensure complete mucosal inspection of the colon on withdrawal. Even when performed by an experienced endoscopist, colonoscope insertion can sometimes be challenging. Water-aided colonoscopy can be used to assist the endoscopist in navigating colons with anatomies that may be challenging owing to severe angulation or redundancy. Water-assisted colonoscopy involves the infusion of water without air and subsequent suctioning during insertion (exchange) or withdrawal (immersion or infusion). This review discusses the technique, effectiveness, safety of water-assisted colonoscopy as well as the application in sedationless endscopy.

Water exchange vs. water immersion during colonoscope insertion

Water exchange (water infusion with water removal primarily during insertion) and water immersion (water infusion with water removal during withdrawal) reduce patient discomfort during colonoscope insertion compared with air insufflation, and represent a major achievement in colonoscopy. Hsieh et al. found that water exchange, relative to water immersion, resulted in more painless insertions to the cecum and improved adenoma detection in the right colon. However, water exchange is also associated with better bowel cleansing and longer insertion and procedure times. These factors are not specific to water exchange, but could account for all or part of the better results with water exchange. Additional controlled investigation is needed to define the benefits of water exchange compared with water immersion.

A patient-blinded randomized, controlled trial comparing air insufflation, water immersion, and water exchange during minimally sedated colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Minimal sedation obviates patient recovery burdens, but intolerable pain limits success of cecal intubation. Painless or minimally uncomfortable insertion ensures success of cecal intubation, current patient satisfaction, and willingness to repeat future colonoscopy with minimal sedation. Water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), when separately compared with air insufflation (AI), significantly reduced insertion pain. To assess comparative effectiveness, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these three methods. We hypothesized that WE could produce the highest proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

METHODS

This prospective patient-blinded trial (NCT01535326) enrolled minimally sedated (25 mg intramuscular meperidine) patients randomized to AI, WI, or WE (90 patients/group) to aid insertion. The previously validated primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting painless insertion.

RESULTS

Painless insertion was reported by 30.0% (AI), 43.3% (WI), and 61.1% (WE) of patients (P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that, after adjusting for gender, body mass index, abdominal compression, position change, insertion time to cecum, and length of scope at cecum, only WE was significantly associated with painless insertion compared with AI (odds ratio (OR)=0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.03-0.24, P<0.001) or WI (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.05-0.40, P<0.001). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right (cecum and ascending) colon was 11.1% (AI), 14.4% (WI), and 26.7% (WE) (P=0.015). The limitations included single site study with unblinded colonoscopist and assistant.

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of AI vs. WI vs. WE confirmed that WE was superior to WI and AI, with a significantly greater proportion of patients reporting painless insertion. The significantly higher ADR in the right colon in the WE group warrants further investigations.

High success rate of repeat colonoscopy with standard endoscopes in patients referred for prior incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

In patients with incomplete colonoscopy, cecal intubation is sometimes unsuccessful due to a redundant or tortuous colon. Repeat colonoscopy may be successful with the use of alternate endoscopes or careful attention to technique but limited outcomes data is available. The aim of this study was to describe the technique, success rate and outcomes of consecutive patients referred for previous incomplete colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of incomplete colonoscopy procedures in patients age 18-90 at an academic teaching hospital referred to an endoscopist specializing in difficult colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was successful in 96 of 100 repeat colonoscopies and 83 procedures were completed with a standard endoscope (adult, pediatric, or gastroscope). The adenoma detection rate was 28% for successful repeat colonoscopies; a majority of these patients had no adenomas identified on incomplete exam. In 69.4% of cases, an endoscope was used to successfully complete colonoscopy that was not used in the incomplete colonoscopy. The median insertion time was significantly less for the complete colonoscopy (10.6 min) compared to the incomplete colonoscopy (18.8 min, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat colonoscopy has a high success rate and identified a significant number of new adenomas. Use of all available endoscopes should be considered prior to procedure termination in patients with a tortuous colon. Repeat colonoscopy can often be accomplished using a standard endoscope and is not attributed to increased endoscope insertion time.

Colon capsule endoscopy is feasible to perform after incomplete colonoscopy and guides further workup in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) could be an option to examine the colon after incomplete colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the extent that CCE complements incomplete colonoscopy and guides further workup.

DESIGN

Prospective, follow-up study.

SETTING

Three tertiary-care centers.

PATIENTS

Consecutive outpatients after colonoscopy failure; 1-year study period.

INTERVENTION

Patients underwent CCE either immediately after colonoscopy or were rescheduled. Further investigations were guided by the results of CCE. Patients were followed as long as 2 years.

RESULTS

We studied 75 outpatients; 39 had a screening colonoscopy. One third of the patients underwent CCE immediately after colonoscopy. Overall, CCE reached or went beyond the colon segment at which colonoscopy stopped in 68 patients (91%). CCE technically complemented difficult colonoscopy independently of whether same-day CCE was performed (24 [96%]) or was not performed (44 [88%]). CCE detected additional significant findings in 36% of the same-day CCE cases and in 48% of the rescheduled ones. Two patients in the same-day group and 13 in the rescheduled CCE group underwent further colon examination that revealed additional significant findings in 3 of them. Ten percent of the patients reported mild adverse events (AE). If needed, 63 participants (84%) were willing to repeat CCE. Follow-up has not identified symptomatic missed colon cancers.

LIMITATIONS

Selected patient population, first-generation colon capsule, old preparation scheme.

CONCLUSION

CCE performed immediately or at a scheduled date after colonoscopy failure is feasible and safe. CCE after incomplete colonoscopy appears to yield significant findings, guide further workup, and has high patient acceptance.

Quality in colonoscopy: European perspectives and practice

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

New platforms and devices in colonoscopy

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a rapidly evolving field. Techniques in endoscopy continue to become more sophisticated, as do the devices and platforms, particularly in colonoscopy and endoscopic resection. This article reviews new platforms for endoscopic imaging of the colon, and discusses new endoscopic accessories and developments in endoscopic resection.

Water-aided colonoscopy

Water-aided methods for colonoscopy include the established water immersion and the recent novel modification of water exchange. Water immersion entails the use of water as an adjunct to air insufflations to facilitate insertion. Water exchange evolved from water immersion to facilitate completion of colonoscopy without discomfort in unsedated patients. Infused water is removed predominantly during insertion rather than withdrawal. A higher adenoma detection rate has been reported with water exchange. Aggregate data of randomized controlled trials suggest that water exchange may be superior to water immersion in attenuating colonoscopy discomfort and optimizing adenoma detection, particularly in the proximal colon.

Water exchange enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy. Unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

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.).