title: Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality. A large proportion of the population is likely to undergo colonoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, or when participating in colorectal cancer screening programs. To reduce pain, water infusion instead of traditional air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy has been proposed, thereby improving patients' acceptance of the procedure. Moreover, the water infusion method may improve early detection of precancerous neoplasms.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare water infusion techniques with standard air insufflation, specifically evaluating technical quality and screening efficacy, as well as patients' acceptance of the water infusion procedure.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialized Register (February 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1999 to February 2014) for eligible randomised controlled trials.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included randomised controlled trials comparing water infusion (water exchange or water immersion methods) against standard air insufflation during the insertion phase of the colonoscopy.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We performed analysis using Review Manager software (RevMan 5).
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included 16 randomised controlled trials consisting of 2933 colonoscopies. Primary outcome measures were cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection; secondary outcomes were time needed to reach the cecum, pain experienced by participants during the procedure, completion of cecal intubation without sedation/analgesia, and adverse events. Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was similar between water infusion and standard air insufflation (risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03, P = 0.93). Adenoma detection rate, that is number of participants with at least one detected adenoma, was slightly improved with water infusion (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30, P = 0.007). Assuming the fraction of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy who had one or more adenomas detected was 20 per 100 with standard colonoscopy, the use of water colonoscopy may increase the fraction to 23 per 100 individuals. From our findings, it is possible that up to 68,000 more of the 1.7 million outpatient screening colonoscopies performed annually in the United States, could detect adenomas if water infusion colonoscopy was used. In addition, with water infusion participants experienced significantly less pain (mean difference in pain score on a 0 to 10 scale: -1.57, 95% CI -2.00 to -1.14, P < 0.00001) and a significantly lower proportion of participants requested on-demand sedation or analgesia, or both (risk ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.27, P < 0.00001). Qualitative analysis suggests that water infusion colonoscopy was not associated with a markedly increased rate of adverse events compared with the standard procedure.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Completeness of colonoscopy, that is cecal intubation rate, was not improved by water infusion compared with standard air insufflation colonoscopy. However, adenoma detection, assessed with two different measures (that is adenoma detection rate and number of detected adenomas per procedure), was slightly augmented by the water infusion colonoscopy. Improved adenoma detection might be due to the cleansing effects of water infusions on the mucosa. Detection of premalignant lesions during standard colonoscopy is suboptimal, and so improvements in adenoma detection by water infusion colonoscopy, although small, may help to reduce the risk of interval colorectal carcinoma. The most obvious benefit of water infusion colonoscopy was reduction of procedure-related abdominal pain, which may enhance the acceptance of screening/surveillance colonoscopy.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Pharmacology of Natural Products & Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 20, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 89081.
authors.forename: Susanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hafner
authors.forename: Karsten
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Zolk
authors.forename: Franco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Radaelli
authors.forename: Jörg
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Otte
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Rabenstein
authors.forename: Oliver
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Zolk
mesh_terms: D015746:Abdominal Pain / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D000236:Adenoma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D006801:Humans; D007327:Insufflation / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014867:Water / Q000008:administration & dosage
chemical_list: D014867:Water