Suppr超能文献

评估初入门内镜医师的水辅助结肠镜检查:一项随机对照试验。

Assessing water-assisted colonoscopy in beginner endoscopists: a randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Manoros Nuttida, Thinrungroj Nithi, Wanchaitanawong Wasuwit, Pinyopornpanish Kanokwan, Kijdamrongthum Phuripong, Leerapun Apinya, Chitapanarux Taned, Thongsawat Satawat, Praisontarangkul Ong-Ard

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

出版信息

BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2025 May 24;12(1):e001561. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001561.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) using the water immersion technique with conventional carbon dioxide insufflation colonoscopy (CC) in novice endoscopists, focusing on procedure time, safety and learning curves.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomised (1:1), single-centre trial at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand. Six gastroenterology fellows with <150 prior colonoscopies received standardised training before performing elective screening colonoscopies using either WAC or CC techniques. Patients were randomly assigned to WAC or CC groups. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included technical failure, procedural difficulty, patient discomfort, complications, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

Of 250 randomised patients, 230 completed the protocol (WAC, n=113; CC, n=117). Mean CIT was comparable between groups (10.6±4.2 min vs 9.8±3.9 min; p=0.35). Technical failure occurred in 6.2% of WAC and 5.1% of CC procedures, with no significant differences in procedural difficulty ratings, analgesic requirements or patient discomfort scores. ADR was similar between arms (40.7% vs 33.3%; p=0.25). Learning curves demonstrated parallel, progressive reductions in CIT among fellows in both groups.

CONCLUSION

WAC is a safe and effective alternative to CC for novice endoscopists, with similar procedure times, learning curves and safety profiles. These findings support the inclusion of WAC in gastroenterology training programmes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TCTR20230324001.

摘要

目的

比较新手内镜医师使用水浸技术的水辅助结肠镜检查(WAC)与传统二氧化碳充气结肠镜检查(CC),重点关注操作时间、安全性和学习曲线。

方法

我们在泰国清迈大学医院进行了一项前瞻性、随机(1:1)、单中心试验。6名既往结肠镜检查次数少于150次的胃肠病学住院医师在使用WAC或CC技术进行择期筛查结肠镜检查前接受了标准化培训。患者被随机分配到WAC组或CC组。主要结局是盲肠插管时间(CIT)。次要结局包括技术失败、操作难度、患者不适、并发症、退镜时间和腺瘤检出率(ADR)。

结果

250例随机分组的患者中,230例完成了方案(WAC组,n = 113;CC组,n = 117)。两组的平均CIT相当(10.6±4.2分钟 vs 9.8±3.9分钟;p = 0.35)。WAC组6.2%的操作和CC组5.1%的操作发生技术失败,操作难度评分、镇痛需求或患者不适评分无显著差异。两组的ADR相似(40.7% vs 33.3%;p = 0.25)。学习曲线显示两组住院医师的CIT均呈平行、逐步下降。

结论

对于新手内镜医师,WAC是CC的一种安全有效的替代方法,操作时间、学习曲线和安全性相似。这些发现支持将WAC纳入胃肠病学培训计划。

试验注册号

TCTR20230324001。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/13be/12104895/8872f4760a32/bmjgast-12-1-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验