2020PubMedOpen access

Comparison of application value between conventional air insufflation and water infusion in colonoscopy.

Lian Ma, Jifu Yan, Jun-Quan Shen, Jianzhong Sang, Huanjun Xu

Open full text 3 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the feasibility of water infusion colonoscopy and its difference with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy in application value. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled clinical study was designed to include 200 patients who underwent sedation-free diagnostic colonoscopy. Among them, 100 patients were treated with water infusion colonoscopy (observation group) and 100 patients were treated with air insufflation colonoscopy (control group). All operations were performed independently by the same experienced physician. The differences in colonoscopy related values, colon adenoma detection rate, and follow-up findings between the patients of two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score of the left hemicolon, transverse colon, right hemicolon, total BBPS scores, and bubble amount between the two groups (P>0.05). In the observation group, the scope-forward time, the time to reach the ileocecal junction, and the total operation time were significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.01). The proportion of patients in whom the ileocecal junction was successfully reached was significantly higher in the observation group. The intraoperative abdominal pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, abdominal distension VAS score, the proportion of postural change, and the proportion of abdominal compression were all significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the endoscope hardness adjustment rate, the scope withdrawal time, total detection rate of adenomas, and the size or location of colon adenomatous lesions between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with control group, the incidence of abdominal pain and VAS scores were significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05), and the willingness of patients to perform colonoscopy again was significantly higher (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients' tolerance and examination satisfaction are significantly better when using water infusion colonoscopy compared with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy, but the operation times are longer.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the feasibility of water infusion colonoscopy and its difference with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy in application value. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled clinical study was designed to include 200 patients who underwent sedation-free diagnostic colonoscopy. Among them, 100 patients were treated with water infusion colonoscopy (observation group) and 100 patients were treated with air insufflation colonoscopy (control group). All operations were performed independently by the same experienced physician. The differences in colonoscopy related values, colon adenoma detection rate, and follow-up findings between the patients of two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score of the left hemicolon, transverse colon, right hemicolon, total BBPS scores, and bubble amount between the two groups (P>0.05). In the observation group, the scope-forward time, the time to reach the ileocecal junction, and the total operation time were significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.01). The proportion of patients in whom the ileocecal junction was successfully reached was significantly higher in the observation group. The intraoperative abdominal pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, abdominal distension VAS score, the proportion of postural change, and the proportion of abdominal compression were all significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the endoscope hardness adjustment rate, the scope withdrawal time, total detection rate of adenomas, and the size or location of colon adenomatous lesions between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with control group, the incidence of abdominal pain and VAS scores were significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05), and the willingness of patients to perform colonoscopy again was significantly higher (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients' tolerance and examination satisfaction are significantly better when using water infusion colonoscopy compared with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy, but the operation times are longer.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the feasibility of water infusion colonoscopy and its difference with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy in application value. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled clinical study was designed to include 200 patients who underwent sedation-free diagnostic colonoscopy. Among them, 100 patients were treated with water infusion colonoscopy (observation group) and 100 patients were treated with air insufflation colonoscopy (control group). All operations were performed independently by the same experienced physician. The differences in colonoscopy related values, colon adenoma detection rate, and follow-up findings between the patients of two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score of the left hemicolon, transverse colon, right hemicolon, total BBPS scores, and bubble amount between the two groups (P>0.05). In the observation group, the scope-forward time, the time to reach the ileocecal junction, and the total operation time were significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.01). The proportion of patients in whom the ileocecal junction was successfully reached was significantly higher in the observation group. The intraoperative abdominal pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, abdominal distension VAS score, the proportion of postural change, and the proportion of abdominal compression were all significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the endoscope hardness adjustment rate, the scope withdrawal time, total detection rate of adenomas, and the size or location of colon adenomatous lesions between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with control group, the incidence of abdominal pain and VAS scores were significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05), and the willingness of patients to perform colonoscopy again was significantly higher (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients' tolerance and examination satisfaction are significantly better when using water infusion colonoscopy compared with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy, but the operation times are longer.

Key concepts: Colonoscopy, Medicine, Visual analogue scale, Abdominal distension, Endoscope, Sedation, Insufflation, Anesthesia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of application value between conventional air insufflation and water infusion in colonoscopy. — Research Paper | ScholarLens