Water immersion colonoscopy facilitates straight passage of the colonoscope through the sigmoid colon without loop formation: randomized controlled trial

Saline-immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection using pocket-creation method

Video 1Saline-immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket-creation method.

Impact of looping on premalignant polyp detection during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The presence of premalignant polyps on colonoscopy is an indicator of metachronous colorectal cancer. Looping during colonoscopy is associated with old age, female sex, and colonoscopy insertion time. However, the clinical significance of looping is not fully understood. We aimed to clarify the effect of looping on colorectal premalignant polyp detection.

AIM

To assess the effects of looping on premalignant polyp detection using logistic regression analyses.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent colonoscopy at Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic between May, 2017 and October, 2020. From the clinic’s endoscopy database, we extracted data on patient age, sex, endoscopist-assessed looping, colonoscopy duration, endoscopist experience, detection rate, and number of premalignant polyps.

RESULTS

We assessed 12259 patients (mean age, 53.6 years; men, 50.7%). Looping occurred in 54.3% of the patients. Mild and severe looping were noted in 4399 and 2253 patients, respectively. The detection rates of adenomas, advanced adenomas, high-risk adenomas, clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs), and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) were 44.7%, 2.0%, 9.9%, 8.9% and 3.5%, respectively. The mean numbers of adenomas and SSLs were 0.82 and 0.04, respectively. The detection rates of adenomas, high-risk adenomas, and CSSPs increased with looping severity (all P < 0.001). The number of adenomas increased with looping severity (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses found that detection of adenomas, high-risk adenomas, and CSSPs was associated with severe looping (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.007, respectively) regardless of age, sex, time required for colonoscope insertion and withdrawal, and endoscopist experience.

CONCLUSION

Looping severity was independently associated with high detection rates of premalignant polyps. Therefore, looping may predict the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer. Endoscopists should carefully examine the colorectum of patients with looping.

Minimal water exchange by the air-water valve versus left colon water exchange in unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Water exchange colonoscopy is the least painful method for unsedated colonoscopies. Simplified left colon water exchange (LWE) reduces the cecal intubation time but it is difficult to avoid the use of an additional pump. Minimal water exchange (MWE) is an improved novel method that eliminates the need for pumps, but it is not clear whether MWE has the same efficiency as LWE.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial conducted in a tertiary hospital. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 to the LWE group or MWE group. The primary outcome was recalled insertion pain measured by a 4-point verbal rating scale. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation time, volume of water used, and patient willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

226 patients were included (LWE n = 113, MWE n = 113). The MWE method showed noninferior moderate/severe pain rates compared with the LWE method (10.6 % vs. 9.7 %), with a difference of 0.9 percentage points (99 % confidence interval [CI] -9.5 to 11.3; threshold, 15 %). ADR, cecal intubation time, and willingness to repeat unsedated colonoscopy were not significantly different between the two groups, but the mean volume of water used was significantly less with MWE than with LWE (163.7 mL vs. 407.2 mL; 99 %CI -298.28 to -188.69).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LWE, MWE demonstrated a noninferior outcome for insertion pain, and comparable cecal intubation time and ADR, but reduced the volume of water used and eliminated the need for a water pump.

Feasibility of salvage colonoscopy by water exchange for failed air-insufflated patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A complete colonoscopy is crucial for screening colorectal diseases and colorectal cancer. However, a failure rate of up to 43% still exists. Several studies have indicated that the water exchange method can enhance the cecal intubation rate while reducing discomfort of the patient. Water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) might be a salvage treatment for the patients who failed from air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC). We aimed to assess the feasibility of WEC as a salvage measure following the failure of conventional AIC.

METHODS

Patients willing to undergo unsedated colonoscopy at a tertiary-care referral center in China were randomly assigned 1:1 to WEC or AIC group for salvage after the initial AIC attempt failed. Patients were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was cecal intubation rate, the secondary outcomes included time to the cecum, maximum pain scores, and technical difficulty level.

RESULTS

Recruited 104 patients were randomized to the WEC (n = 52) or AIC (n = 52) group. WEC significantly increased the cecal intubation rate (92.3% vs 73.1%; p = .02). The maximum pain scores and technical difficulty level in the WEC group were significantly lower than the AIC group during salvage procedure (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized, controlled trial confirms that the WEC significantly enhanced cecal intubation rate in difficult colonoscopy in unsedated patients after the failure of standard AIC. The increased cecal intubation rate, lower pain scores and technical difficulty level suggest WEC is a good alternative for incomplete unsedated colonoscopy. Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100051483.

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.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging as a rational investment for specific colonoscopies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) was regarded as an adjuvant device to improve procedural efficacy and patients' comfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Based on the heterogeneity of included studies, random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for meta-analysis, with a total of 7,060 patients. Although there is a slightly lower risk of cecal intubation failure with the adjuvant of MEI (RD 3%; P < 0.00001) compared to the control group, the updated studies show no significant benefits. Similarly, the cecal intubation time, pain scores, and loop formation with the adjuvant of MEI did not show any advantages. However, considerable significant benefits were found in the subgroup of technically difficult colonoscopy and inexperienced colonoscopists. Moreover, MEI was associated with lower loop intubation time, lower abdominal compression times, and better lesion localization.

CONCLUSION

The clinical benefits of MEI could be exaggerated. However, MEI has considerable advantages in technically difficult colonoscopies, the assistance for inexperienced colonoscopists, loop resolving, and lesion localization.

Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study

Background and study aims  Patient safety during a colonoscopy highly depends on endoscopist competence. Endoscopic societies have been calling for an objective and regular assessment of the endoscopists, but existing assessment tools are time-consuming and prone to bias. We aimed to develop and gather evidence of validity for a computerized assessment tool delivering automatic and unbiased assessment of colonoscopy based on 3 dimensional coordinates from the colonoscope. Methods  Twenty-four participants were recruited and divided into two groups based on experience: 12 experienced and 12 novices. Participants performed twice on a physical phantom model with a standardized alpha loop in the sigmoid colon. Data was gathered directly from the Olympus ScopeGuide system providing XYZ-coordinates along the length of the colonoscope. Five different motor skill measures were developed based on the data, named: Travel Length, Tip Progression, Chase Efficiency, Shaft movement without tip progression, and Looping. Results  The experinced had a lower travel length ( P  < 0.001), tip progression ( P  < 0.001), chase efficiency ( P  = 0.001) and looping ( P  = 0.006), and a higher shaft movement without tip progression ( P  < 0.001) reaching the cecum compared with the novices. A composite score was developed based on the five measurements to create a combined score of progression, the 3D-Colonoscopy-Progression-Score (3D-CoPS). The 3D-CoPS revealed a significant difference between groups (experienced: 0.495 (SD 0.303) and novices -0.454 (SD 0.707), P  < 0.001). Conclusion  This study presents a novel, real-time computerized assessment tool for colonoscopy, and strong evidence of validity was gathered in a simulation-based setting. The system shows promising opportunities for automatic, unbiased and continuous assessment of colonoscopy performance.

Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies

Flexible colonoscopy remains the prime mean of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and the gold standard of all population-based screening pathways around the world. Almost 60% of CRC deaths could be prevented with screening. However, colonoscopy attendance rates are affected by discomfort, fear of pain and embarrassment or loss of control during the procedure. Moreover, the emergence and global thread of new communicable diseases might seriously affect the functioning of contemporary centres performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Innovative solutions are needed: artificial intelligence (AI) and physical robotics will drastically contribute for the future of the healthcare services. The translation of robotic technologies from traditional surgery to minimally invasive endoscopic interventions is an emerging field, mainly challenged by the tough requirements for miniaturization. Pioneering approaches for robotic colonoscopy have been reported in the nineties, with the appearance of inchworm-like devices. Since then, robotic colonoscopes with assistive functionalities have become commercially available. Research prototypes promise enhanced accessibility and flexibility for future therapeutic interventions, even via autonomous or robotic-assisted agents, such as robotic capsules. Furthermore, the pairing of such endoscopic systems with AI-enabled image analysis and recognition methods promises enhanced diagnostic yield. By assembling a multidisciplinary team of engineers and endoscopists, the paper aims to provide a contemporary and highly-pictorial critical review for robotic colonoscopes, hence providing clinicians and researchers with a glimpse of the major changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Diagnostic ileocolonoscopy: getting the basics right

Proficient colonoscopy technique that optimises patient comfort while simultaneously enhancing the timely detection of pathology and subsequent therapy is an aspirational and achievable goal for every endoscopist. This article aims to provide strategies to improve colonoscopy quality for both endoscopists and patients.

My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy

The goal of diagnostic colonoscopy is to achieve procedural completion while maximising effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety. In recent years, international interest in water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) has been steadily gathering pace. A plethora of high-quality randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses now offer incontrovertible evidence into the benefits of WAC, both for the endoscopist and the patient. Despite this, uptake of WAC within the UK has been limited, with the lack of educational resources representing a significant barrier. This practical step-by-step guide is aimed at both existing practitioners and trainees, with a view to promoting familiarity with WAC and potentially for incorporation into daily practice which may ultimately have a positive effect on quality of colonoscopy and patient experience.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.

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.

Colonic dysmotility and morphological abnormality frequently detected in Japanese patients with irritable bowel syndrome

Background/Aims

Colonoscopy and computed tomography (CT) are used primarily to exclude organic diseases in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), rather than to assess the pathophysiology of IBS. We aimed to evaluate colonic dysmotility and morphology in Japanese patients with IBS.

Methods

One hundred eighty-four patients with IBS and 49 asymptomatic controls who underwent colonoscopy in combination with CT colonography or barium enema were retrospectively reviewed between 2008 and 2012. Water-aided colonoscopy was performed without sedation by a single endoscopist. The duration and pattern of colonic movement and cecal intubation time were recorded. To assess colonic morphology, barium enema or CT colonography were performed immediately after colonoscopy.

Results

Colonic dysmotility was more frequent in the IBS group (28.8% vs. 2.0% in controls, P<0.001), especially in cases of IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D) (IBS with constipation [IBS-C] 28.8% vs. IBS-D 60.0% vs. mixed IBS [IBS-M] 5.1%, P<0.001). Colonic morphological abnormality was more frequent in the IBS group than in the control group (77.7% vs. 24.5%, P<0.001), especially in IBS-M and IBS-C groups (IBS-C 77.5% vs. IBS-D 48.9% vs. IBS-M 100%, P<0.001). Most patients with IBS with colonic dysmotility had experienced stress related to their symptoms. Cecal intubation time was significantly longer in the IBS group than in the control group (12.1±6.9 minutes vs. 4.6±1.9 minutes, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Unsedated colonoscopy, combined with radiographic findings, can detect colonic dysmotility and morphological abnormality. Technical difficulties observed during cecal intubation may partially explain the pathophysiology of IBS.

A randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation during colonoscopy without sedation

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have shown that water exchange is superior to air insufflation in attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these methods to assess their effectiveness in colonoscopy without sedation.

METHODS

A total of 447 outpatients were randomized to either water exchange (WE) or the standard air (CO2) insufflation (AI). The primary outcome was the improvement of patient intraprocedural pain (pain score), evaluated using a questionnaire (scores 1 to 5).

RESULTS

After exclusion of 44 patients from further analysis, 403 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in clinical background between the WE and AI groups. Patients in the WE group reported less intraprocedural pain than those in the AI group (2.17 ± 1.06 vs. 2.42 ± 1.03; unpaired t test, p = 0.021). We divided the cases into two groups, more or less painful colonoscopy, based on age, body mass index, use of anti-peristaltic drugs or not, and physician's experience. In less painful colonoscopy, the WE method could reduce pain effectively but its effect was limited in the more painful group.

CONCLUSION

WE is superior to AI for attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy without sedation, but its efficacy is limited in more painful endoscopy.

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.