Cadoni Sergio, Leung Felix W
Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Via R. Cattaneo snc, 09016, Iglesias, Carbonia-Iglesias, Italy.
Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, North Hills, CA, USA.
Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2017 Mar;15(1):135-154. doi: 10.1007/s11938-017-0119-1.
The current review will attempt to describe the important lessons learned from published randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing water immersion (WI) or water exchange (WE) techniques with gas insufflation colonoscopy. Air insufflation (AI) to distend the colon to permit visualization and passage through the lumen was developed for diagnostic colonoscopy. When screening colonoscopy was adopted, the same AI method was used. Interval cancers, diagnosed within 3 to 5 years after an index screening colonoscopy, appeared to be linked to low adenoma detection rate (ADR). Conscious sedation was introduced to manage insertion pain a few decades ago, incurring moderate costs of nursing staff, space for recovery, patient burdens of escort requirement, and at home recovery time. Recent advancement to deep sedation entailed additional costs of anesthesia staff support. In the past decade, investigators worldwide evaluated the use of water-assisted methods as an adjunct or in lieu of gas insufflation during insertion to minimize discomfort and improve ease of insertion. For convenience, one approach embraced the removal of infused water during withdrawal (WI). A subsequent evolution entailed removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (WE), specifically designed to further minimize insertion pain. Results of RCT shed light on the impact of WI and WE on insertion pain (primary outcome) and adenoma detection (secondary outcome). Water immersion is easier to learn and apply than WE, but mastery of the WE technique appears to have two major advantages. Current RCT data suggest that both WI and WE decrease insertion pain and facilitate completion of difficult colonoscopy, with WE having a superior impact than WI. Water exchange was serendipitously associated with an increase in ADR; this has been repeatedly confirmed in follow-up studies. When it is unknown which patient's colonoscopy will be difficult, it would seem prudent for the average colonoscopist to optimize the chance of success and increase in ADR by using WE from the very start.
本综述将试图描述从已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)中吸取的重要经验教训,这些试验比较了水浸(WI)或水交换(WE)技术与气体注入结肠镜检查。为诊断性结肠镜检查开发了空气注入(AI)以扩张结肠,以便于观察和通过肠腔。当采用筛查结肠镜检查时,使用的是相同的AI方法。在初次筛查结肠镜检查后3至5年内诊断出的间期癌似乎与低腺瘤检出率(ADR)有关。几十年前引入了清醒镇静来处理插入时的疼痛,这带来了护理人员的适度成本、恢复空间、患者的陪护需求负担以及在家恢复时间。最近向深度镇静的进展带来了麻醉人员支持的额外成本。在过去十年中,世界各地的研究人员评估了在插入过程中使用水辅助方法作为气体注入的辅助手段或替代方法,以尽量减少不适并提高插入的便利性。为方便起见,一种方法是在退出时去除注入的水(WI)。随后的发展是主要在插入过程中去除注入的水(WE),专门设计用于进一步减少插入疼痛。RCT的结果揭示了WI和WE对插入疼痛(主要结果)和腺瘤检测(次要结果)的影响。水浸比WE更容易学习和应用,但掌握WE技术似乎有两个主要优点。目前的RCT数据表明,WI和WE都能减轻插入疼痛并有助于完成困难的结肠镜检查,其中WE的效果优于WI。水交换意外地与ADR的增加相关;这在后续研究中得到了反复证实。当不知道哪位患者的结肠镜检查会困难时,对于普通结肠镜检查医生来说,从一开始就使用WE来优化成功机会并提高ADR似乎是谨慎的做法。