Use of warm carbon dioxide insufflators does not affect intra-colonic gas temperature and has no effect on polyp detection rate during colonoscopy - a randomized controlled trial

Intestinal topical lidocaine spray improves the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic polypectomy can prevent colorectal cancer. Adequate surgical field visualization is crucial to complete resection. To prevent visual field loss caused by intestinal peristalsis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine spraying during the endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy (ESP).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on 100 ESP patients admitted from July 2021 to October 2021, among which 50 patients received lidocaine (case group) and other 50 patients received normal saline (control group). Lidocaine or saline was sprayed on the colonic mucosa within 5 cm above and below the polyps before polypectomy. The en-bloc resection rate (EBRR) and complete resection rate (CRR) were primarily evaluated. Secondary outcomes included EBRR for polyps located in the 5-11 o'clock position, sigmoid colon peristalsis frequency, degree of exposure to the surgical field, operative times, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the basic demographic characteristics between the two groups. EBRR and CRR in the case group were 72.9% and 95.8%, and in the control group were 53.3% and 91.1%, respectively. The EBRR of sigmoid polyps located at the 5-11 o'clock positions was significantly higher in the case group (82.8%) than in the control group (56.7%) (P = 0.03). Sigmoid colonic peristalsis was significantly inhibited after lidocaine spraying (P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the operative times and adverse event rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical spraying lidocaine around polyps can safely and effectively reduce intestinal peristalsis, thus improving the EBRR of sigmoid polypectomy.

Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation, CO2 insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion in colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colonoscopy is an excellent screening tool for colorectal cancer. There are four colonoscopy techniques: air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion. Some studies reported that the latter three methods are better than the criterion standard (air insufflation), whereas some studies did not. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the four colonoscopy techniques, a network meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT) published up to September 2017 from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. Studies referencing the comparison between at least two of air insufflation, CO₂ insufflation, water exchange, and water immersion were selected. Primary outcomes included pain score during insertion, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate, and secondary outcomes included cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate. Mean differences or odds ratios and their corresponding 95% credible intervals were pooled with Bayesian modeling.

RESULTS

Forty RCT with 13 734 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that air insufflation had the highest pain score (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA]: 98.8%) and the lowest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 21.3%) and polyp (SUCRA: 16.8%). Water exchange had the lowest pain score (SUCRA: 1.1%) and highest detection rate of adenoma (SUCRA: 96.0%) and polyp (SUCRA: 98.9%), although it led to the longest cecal intubation time (SUCRA: 86.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Air insufflation might be the most unsatisfactory colonoscopy. Meanwhile, water exchange might be the most efficient colonoscopy.