My approach to water-assisted colonoscopy

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Optimizing cecal views during colonoscopy using patient position change

BACKGROUND

Patient positioning has been found to be a simple technique to improve luminal distention and visualization during colonoscopy. This study examined which position provided the cleanest image of the cecum using the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS) and the best view of the cecum overall as ranked by blinded assessors.

METHODS

A sample of 90 sets of cecal images were obtained from patients undergoing a non-urgent colonoscopy. Each set included cecal images of patients while lying in three positions-right lateral decubitus, left lateral decubitus, and supine. Two authors reviewed these sets of images and excluded those that were unclear. A third author, blinded to the position, selected the final 33 sets of images. Two experienced endoscopists completed a blinded survey of each image set. They used the BBPS to assess and score each image as the primary outcome measure. The endoscopists also ranked each image set in terms of the best overall view of the cecum. Data were collected using Qualtrics software. Nonparametric tests were used to analyze the data using SPSS software (v.25). A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The BBPS showed a significant difference between patient positions when tested by Kruskal-Wallis. Subsequent Mann Whitney U tests indicated that the right lateral decubitus position was ranked higher than left lateral decubitus or supine positions. There was no significant difference in the left and supine positions. Cohen's Kappa suggested moderate agreement between raters. The raters also favored the right lateral position over the other positions when assessing overall image preference displaying the cecum.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that positioning patients in the right lateral decubitus position provides the best view of the cecum during colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy: an evidence-based approach

Colonoscopy is an invasive, endoscopic procedure undertaken to visualise the inner lumen of the colon and is used for a variety of diagnostic purposes. The procedure is increasingly performed by nurse endoscopists. This article provides an overview of the indications and contraindications for colonoscopy and describes various elements of the procedure, including consent, sedation and bowel preparation within the context of the evidence base. The article also discusses patient care before, during and after the procedure.

Colonoscopy-related colonic ischemia

Colonoscopy is a risk factor for colon ischemia. The colon is susceptible to ischemia due to its minor blood flow compared to other abdominal organs; the etiology of colon ischemia after colonoscopy is multifactorial. The causative mechanisms include splanchnic circulation impairment, bowel preparation, drugs used for sedation, bowel wall ischemia due to insufflation/barotrauma, and introduction of the endoscope. Gastroenterologists must be aware of this condition and its risk factors for risk minimization, early diagnosis, and proper treatment.

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

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.

Impact of a national basic skills in colonoscopy course on trainee performance: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy basic skills in colonoscopy (BSC) course was introduced in 2009 to improve colonoscopy training within the United Kingdom, but its impact on trainee performance is unknown.

AIM

To assess whether attendance of the BSC could improve colonoscopy performance.

METHODS

Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between 2011-2016 were stratified into 3 groups according to pre-course procedure count (< 70, 70-140 and > 140). Study outcomes, comprising the unassisted caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the performance indicator of colonic intubation (PICI), were studied over the 50 procedures pre and post- course. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to detect step-change changes attributable to the course.

RESULTS

A total of 369 trainees with pre-course procedure counts of < 70 (n = 118), 70-140 (n = 121) and > 140 (n = 130) were included. Over the 50 pre-course procedures, significant linear improvements in CIR were found, with average increases of 4.2, 3.6 and 1.7 percentage points (pp) per 10 procedures performed in the < 70, 70-140 and > 140 groups respectively (all P < 0.001). The < 70 procedures group saw a significant step-change improvement in CIR, increasing from 46% in the last pre-course procedure, to 51% in the first procedure post-course (P = 0.005). The CIR step-change was not significant in the 70-140 (68% to 71%; P = 0.239) or > 140 (86% to 87%; P = 0.354) groups. For PICI, significant step-change improvements were seen in all three groups, with average increases of 5.6 pp (P < 0.001), 5.4 pp (P = 0.003) and 3.9 pp (P = 0.014) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Attendance of the BSC was associated with a significant step-change improvement in PICI, regardless of prior procedural experience. However, CIR data suggest that the optimal timing of course attendance appears to be at earlier stages of training (< 70 procedures).

Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies

Flexible colonoscopy remains the prime mean of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and the gold standard of all population-based screening pathways around the world. Almost 60% of CRC deaths could be prevented with screening. However, colonoscopy attendance rates are affected by discomfort, fear of pain and embarrassment or loss of control during the procedure. Moreover, the emergence and global thread of new communicable diseases might seriously affect the functioning of contemporary centres performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Innovative solutions are needed: artificial intelligence (AI) and physical robotics will drastically contribute for the future of the healthcare services. The translation of robotic technologies from traditional surgery to minimally invasive endoscopic interventions is an emerging field, mainly challenged by the tough requirements for miniaturization. Pioneering approaches for robotic colonoscopy have been reported in the nineties, with the appearance of inchworm-like devices. Since then, robotic colonoscopes with assistive functionalities have become commercially available. Research prototypes promise enhanced accessibility and flexibility for future therapeutic interventions, even via autonomous or robotic-assisted agents, such as robotic capsules. Furthermore, the pairing of such endoscopic systems with AI-enabled image analysis and recognition methods promises enhanced diagnostic yield. By assembling a multidisciplinary team of engineers and endoscopists, the paper aims to provide a contemporary and highly-pictorial critical review for robotic colonoscopes, hence providing clinicians and researchers with a glimpse of the major changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Diagnostic ileocolonoscopy: getting the basics right

Proficient colonoscopy technique that optimises patient comfort while simultaneously enhancing the timely detection of pathology and subsequent therapy is an aspirational and achievable goal for every endoscopist. This article aims to provide strategies to improve colonoscopy quality for both endoscopists and patients.

Recent advances in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy continues to evolve as equipment and techniques improve. Traditionally, colonoscopy has focused on adenoma detection, characterisation and resection as the primary aims, and there has certainly been considerable activity over the last few years in terms of addressing these important issues. This review article not only will discuss progress made in these areas but also will focus on when to colonoscope in terms of introduction of faecal immunochemical testing, how to insert with the advent of water-assisted insertion, and how to withdraw using a bundle of evidence-based techniques to improve adenoma detection. In addition, the ramifications of failing to discover polyps and of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer are highlighted.