CTO Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Iglesias, Italy.
Russell Hall, Dept. of Gastroenterology, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jun;93(6):1411-1420.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.011. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
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.
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.
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).
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.
自 2008 年以来,大量研究比较了水辅助(辅助)结肠镜检查(WAC)和水下切除(UWR)与标准结肠镜检查治疗结直肠病变的疗效。我们回顾和分级了具有潜在临床应用的研究证据。我们在经验丰富的结肠镜检查医师中进行了一项关于水浸(WI)、水交换(WE)和 UWR 的定义和实践的改良 Delphi 共识。
主要数据库进行检索,以获得可能影响与 WAC 和 UWR 相关的临床实践的研究报告。相关参考文献进行分级(推荐分级、评估、发展和评估)。提取支持循证声明的数据进行制表,并提供给受访者。我们收到了来自 16 个国家的 55 名(调查的 85%)经验丰富的结肠镜检查医师(37 名专家和 18 名 WAC 非专家)的 3 轮回复。第二轮和第三轮匿名投票,≥80%的同意定义为共识。我们旨在就所有声明达成共识。
在第一和第二轮改良 Delphi 中,20 项提议的陈述减少到 14 项,然后减少到 11 项。在第三轮之后,所有受访者的综合回复描绘了 11 项声明(S)的共识:WI(S1)和 WE(S2)的定义、程序特征(S3-S5)、对肠道清洁度的影响(S6)、腺瘤检出率(S7)、疼痛评分(S8)和 UWR(S9-S11)。
最重要的共识声明是 WI 和 WE 在实施和结果上并不相同。由于选择了可能影响 WAC 和 UWR 临床实践的研究进行审查,因此这项改良 Delphi 共识支持在临床实践中使用 WAC 的建议。