Effects of Encircled Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis

Use of an abdominal binder in colonoscopies performed by trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic tool for colonic diseases and serves as the preferred screening method for colorectal cancer (CRC). A common difficulty during colonoscopy is the looping of the colon, which can result in patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and the need for auxiliary maneuvers. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using an abdominal binder during colonoscopy performed by trainees.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary center. Participants were outpatients aged 20-80 years undergoing elective colonoscopy. They were randomly assigned to either the abdominal binder (AB) group or the sham binder (SB) group. The primary outcome measured was cecal intubation time. Secondary outcomes included the need for manual abdominal compression and postural adjustments during the procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 211 participants were enrolled in the study. The median CIT was significantly shorter in the AB group compared to the SB group (728 s vs. 774 s, p = 0.008). Additionally, the AB group demonstrated a significantly reduced need for manual abdominal compression (p ≤ 0.001) and postural adjustments (p = 0.01). The requirement for abdominal compression decreased by 40% (95% CI 27.7-52.9%), while the need for postural changes was reduced by 9.4% (95% CI 1.9-88.7%).

CONCLUSION

The use of an abdominal binder during colonoscopy performed by trainees significantly reduced cecal intubation time and minimized the need for ancillary maneuvers, such as manual abdominal compression and postural adjustments.

Does Manual Abdominal Pressure During Colonoscopy Put Endoscopy Staff and Patients at Risk? Experiences of Endoscopy Nurses and Technicians

Endoscopy staff suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate greater than or comparable to nurses and technicians in other subspecialities, which may be attributable to the widespread use of manual pressure and repositioning during colonoscopy. In addition to negatively impacting staff health and job performance, colonoscopy-related musculoskeletal disorder injuries may also signal potential risks to patient safety. To assess the prevalence of staff injury and perceived patient harm relating to the use of manual pressure and repositioning techniques during colonoscopy, 185 attendees of a recent national meeting of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates were asked to recall experiencing injuries to themselves or observing injuries to other staff or patients during colonoscopy. A majority of respondents (84.9%, n = 157) reported either experiencing or observing staff injury, whereas 25.9% ( n = 48) reported observing patient complications. Among respondents who perform manual repositioning and apply manual pressure during colonoscopy (57.3%, n = 106), 85.8% ( n = 91) reported experiencing musculoskeletal disorders from performing these tasks; 81.1% ( n = 150) reported no awareness of colonoscopy-specific ergonomics policies at their facility. Results highlight the relationship between the physical job requirements of endoscopy nurses and technicians, staff musculoskeletal disorders, and patient complications, and suggest that implementation of staff safety protocols may benefit patients as well as endoscopy staff.

The impact of abdominal compression devices on colonoscopy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for colorectal cancer screening. Looping occurs in 91% of cases undergoing colonoscopy and can cause patient discomfort, prolonged cecal intubation time (CIT), and colon perforation. This meta-analysis investigates the impact of abdominal compression devices (ACD) on colonoscopy outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through February 2nd, 2023. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were pooled using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI) using Revman. Our review protocol was prospectively published on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023397344.

RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with a total of 1,889 patients. ACD was effective to decrease CIT (MD: -2.15 with a 95% CI [-3.49, -0.80], p = .002), postural change (RR: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.49, 0.66], p = .00001), and VAS pain score (MD: -1.49 with 95% CI [-1.81, -1.17], p = .0001). However, there was no difference between ACD and control groups regarding manual compression (RR: 0.65 with 95% CI [0.42, 1.00], p = .05), complete colonoscopy rate (CCR) (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.99, 1.04], p = .31), and cecal intubation length (CIL) (MD: -2.25 with 95% CI [-7.64, 3.14], p = .41).

CONCLUSION

ACD during colonoscopy may enhance patient comfort by reducing CIT, pain, and postural changes. Nevertheless, additional RCTs are necessary to validate these results and determine the most suitable approach to utilize ACD for colonoscopy.

Strategies to manage the difficult colonoscopy

During endoscopy, an endoscopist is inevitably faced with the occasional “difficult colonoscopy,” in which the endoscopist finds it challenging to advance the endoscope to the cecum. Beyond optimization of technique, with minimized looping, minimal insufflation, sufficient sedation, and abdominal splinting when needed, sometimes additional tools may be needed. In this review, we cover available techniques and technologies to help navigate the difficult colonoscopy, including the ultrathin colonoscope, rigidizing overtube, balloon-assisted colonoscopy and the abdominal compression device.

Factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time in patients undergoing water exchange colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Water exchange is superior to air insufflation in reducing discomfort and increasing adenoma detection during colonoscopy. However, prolonged cecal insertion time is a drawback. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting cecal insertion during water exchange colonoscopy.

METHODS

We pooled data from five randomized clinical trials that included patients undergoing water exchange colonoscopy. Logistic analysis was performed to determine the independent factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time (> 15 min).

RESULTS

The cohort included 912 patients (493 men and 419 women) with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 49-64 years). The median cecal insertion time was 13.5 min (interquartile range, 10.9-17.0 min). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that female sex, body mass index < 25 kg/m² , a history of constipation, no sedation, less experienced endoscopist, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≤ 6, infused water volume during insertion ≥ 1000 mL, and scope length at the cecum ≥ 85 cm were associated with prolonged cecal insertion time. With increasing volume of infused water (1000-2000 mL), the median cecal insertion time increased gradually from 11.4 to 23.0 min (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study identified independent factors associated with prolonged cecal insertion time during water exchange colonoscopy. Several factors are modifiable to achieve a shorter insertion time, including better bowel preparation, the use of sedation, more experienced endoscopist, infusing less water during insertion, and maintaining a shorter scope length.

Ergonomics of Endoscopy

Optimal endoscopic operations incorporate ergonomic principles into the endoscopy environment benefiting endoscopists, endoscopy unit personnel, and patients. A high prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal injuries is well established among endoscopists and gastroenterology nurses. Ergonomics can be integrated into all facets of the endoscopy unit including scheduling, endoscopy unit design, training programs, and investment in technology. Preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure areas should aim to deliver patient safety, privacy, and comfort, while also supporting endoscopists and staff with adjustable rooms and effective work flows. Team-wide educational initiatives can improve ergonomic awareness. These strategies help mitigate risks for musculoskeletal injuries and can lead to increased productivity. The COVID-19 area brings novel challenges to endoscopy.

Sitafloxacin for Third-Line Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sitafloxacin-based therapy is a potent candidate for third-line Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment. In this systematic review, we summarise current reports with sitafloxacin-based therapy as a third-line treatment.

METHODS

Clinical studies were systematically searched using PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database. We combined data from clinical studies using a random-effects model and calculated pooled event rates, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the pooled odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

We included twelve clinical studies in the present systematic review. The mean eradication rate for 7-day regimens of either PPI (proton pump inhibitor) or vonoprazan-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin was 80.6% (95% CI, 75.2-85.0). The vonoprazan-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen was significantly superior to the PPI-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen (pooled OR of successful eradication: 6.00; 95% CI: 2.25-15.98, p < 0.001). The PPI-sitafloxacin-amoxicillin regimen was comparable with PPI-sitafloxacin-metronidazole regimens (pooled OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.55-2.07, p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 7-day regimen composed of vonoprazan, sitafloxacin, and amoxicillin is a good option as the third-line Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment in Japan, the extension of treatment duration should be considered to further improve the eradication rate. Considering the safety concern of fluoroquinolones, sitafloxcin should be used after confirming drug susceptibility.

Additional Mosapride to Proton Pump Inhibitor for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the additive effect of mosapride to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is still controversial. This meta-analysis integrated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which mosapride combined with a PPI was compared with a PPI alone in GERD treatment.

METHODS

RCTs were systematically searched with the PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database. We combined the data from the RCTs with a random effects model, calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and pooled the risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included nine RCTs in the present meta-analysis. In the mosapride combined with PPI group, the improvement of the symptom score was significantly greater than that in the PPI alone group without significant heterogeneity (SMD: -0.28, 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.12, p = 0.0007). In the mosapride combined with PPI group, the symptom score after treatment was significantly lower than that in the PPI alone group (SMD: -0.24, 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.06, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Mosapride combined with a PPI significantly improved the reflux symptom score compared with that of PPI alone.