IJETSI

Title: WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE: AIR INSUFFLATION COLONOSCOPY OR WATER-ASSISTED COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE IN ADDITION TO STANDARD COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE?
Authors: Tahir Buran, Elmas kasap
\|\| \|\|
Tahir Buran1, Elmas kasap1 1. Gastroenterology Department of Manisa Celal Bayar University, Medicine School.
MLA 8 Buran, Tahir, and Elmas Kasap. "WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE: AIR INSUFFLATION COLONOSCOPY OR WATER-ASSISTED COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE IN ADDITION TO STANDARD COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE?" IJETSI, vol. 4, no. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2019, pp. 261-271, ijetsi.org/more2019.php?id=21. Accessed Oct. 2019. APA Buran, T., & Kasap, E. (2019, September/October). WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE: AIR INSUFFLATION COLONOSCOPY OR WATER-ASSISTED COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE IN ADDITION TO STANDARD COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE? IJETSI, 4(5), 261-271. Retrieved from ijetsi.org/more2019.php?id=21 Chicago Buran, Tahir, and Elmas Kasap. "WHICH IS MORE EFFECTIVE: AIR INSUFFLATION COLONOSCOPY OR WATER-ASSISTED COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE IN ADDITION TO STANDARD COLONOSCOPY TECHNIQUE?" IJETSI 4, no. 5 (September/October 2019), 261-271. Accessed October, 2019. ijetsi.org/more2019.php?id=21.
References [1]. Ege B, Bozkaya H,Leventoglu S. et al.Kaliteli kolonoskopi degerlendirme kriterlerine uygun kolonoskop uygulamas?. Kolon ve Rektum hast. Derg 2013;23:118-123 [2]. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoskopy 2006; 101:873-5 [3]. K?rbas G, Ustundag G,Ozden A, Ust ve alt gastrointestinal sisitem incelemesi. Guncel Gastroenteroloji dergisi, 2009; 14/2:117 [4]. Jemal A, Siege R, Ward E. et al. Cancer statistics, 2006; 56:106-130 [5]. Meral M, Rutin kolonoskopik incelemede ileocekal valv entubasyonu gereklimidir? Dan?sman. Prof. Dr.Hale Akp?nar.Dokuz eylul Uni.T?p Fakultesi Gastroenteroloji Bilim Dal? Uzmanl?k Tezi.2009.Izmir [6]. Nagasako k, Yazava C, Takemato T. Biopsy of the terminal ileum. gastrointest Endosc 1972; 19:7-9 [7]. Savas B, Bektas M, Perincinel S. et al.Inflamatuvar barsak hastal?g?nda histopatolojik kriterlerin klinik semptomatolojisiyle iliskisi. Akademik gastroenteroloji Dergisi 2008; 7:24-9 [8]. Rabenstain T.,Radaelly F.,Zolk O. Warm water infusion colonoscopy: a rewiew and metaanalysis. Endoscopy 20012; 44(10):940-951 [9]. Hamamato N.,Nakanishi Y.,Morimoto N.et al. Anew water instillation method for colonoscopy without sedation as performed by endoskopists-in-training. Gastrointest Endosc.2002 Dec;56(6):825-8 [10]. Leung CW, Katenbach T, Soetikno R. Et al. Water immersion versus Standard colonoscopy insertion technique:randomised trial shows promise for minimal sedation. Endoscopy.2010 Jul;42(7):557-63 [11]. Hu D, Xu Y, Sun Y, Zhu Q. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Tech coloproctol 2013;17:487-496 [12]. Park SC, Keum B, Kim ES et al. Usefulness of warm water and oil assistance in colonoscopy by trainees. Dig Dis Sci .2010 55:2940-2944 [13]. Radaelli F, Paggi S, Amato A et al. Warm water infusion versus air insufflation for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc.2010 72:701- 709 [14]. Hsieh YH, Lin HJ, Tseng KC. Limited water infusion decreases pain during minimally sedated colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol.2011 17:2236-2240 [15]. Leung J, Mann S, Siao-Salera R et al. A randomized, controlled trial to confirm the beneficial effects of the water method on U.S. veterans undergoing colonoscopy with the option of on-demand sedation. Gastrointest Endosc.2011 73:103-110 [16]. Ramirez FC, Leung FW. A head-to-head comparison of the water vs. air method in patients undergoing Interv Gastroenterol. screening colonoscopy.2011 1:130-135 [17]. Ryu KH, Huh KC, Kang YW et al. An effective instillation method for water-assisted colonoscopy as performed by intraining endoscopists in terms of volume and temperature. Dig Dis Sci.2012 57:142-147 [18]. Falt P, Liberda M, Smajstrla V et al.Combination of water immersion and carbon dioxide insufflation for minimal sedation colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-center trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.2012 24:971-977 [19]. Hsieh YH, Yang HW, Tseng CW. et al..:,Insertion Water Exchange (We) Minimizes Multitasking-Related Distractions From Mucosal Inspection During Withdrawal Inspection - A Plausible Explanation for Enhanced Adenoma Detection Rate. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie..2017.03.1235
Abstract: Objective: We aimed to compare success of traditional colonoscopy with alternative waterassisted colonoscopy technique. Material and method: This prospective study included 147 patients meeting inclusion criteria who presented to Gastroenterology Department of Manisa Celal Bayar University, Medicine School January, 2016 and December, 2017 and were considered to have colonoscopy indication. In all patients, colonoscopy was performed by a single endoscopist with 17 years of experience. Seventy-six patients underwent water-assisted colonoscopy while 71 patients underwent traditional air insufflation colonoscopy. The 2 groups were prospectively included to the study. In the study, we assessed following parameters in both techniques: 1) we detected cecal intubation rate and time to cecal access; 2) we calculated pain symptom index during procedure; 3) we asked patient whether he/she will be willing to undergo same procedure; 4) we evaluate whether there is difference in detection rate of colorectal disease (such as polyp, ulcer, cancer, diverticulitis, angiodysplasia) between groups. Findings: Time to cecal access was shorter in water-assisted colonoscopy with minimal sedation when compared to traditional air insufflation colonoscopy. In water-assisted colonoscopy, cecal intubation was achieved in 68 patients (89.47%) while it was failed in 4 patients (5.2%) and they were excluded. In traditional air insufflation colonoscopy, cecal intubation was achieved in 69 patients (97.18%) while it was failed in one patient (1.4%) and patient was excluded. The pain index was rated from 0 to 5 points. The pain index was lower in water-assisted colonoscopy than traditional air insufflation colonoscopy (mean pain index: 2.66 vs. 3.23; p<0.05). A colorectal disease was detected in 36 patients (50%) underwent water-assisted colonoscopy whereas in 48 patients (68.5%) underwent air insufflation colonoscopy, indicating no significant difference (p>0.05). Conclusion: Cecal intubation is faster and associated to less pain in water-assisted colonoscopy when compared to traditional air insufflation technique. There is no significant difference in patient satisfaction. However, colorectal disease detection rate and cecal intubation rate are comparable among groups.

IJETSI is Member of