Search

Background and Aims Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. Methods Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. Results In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). Conclusions The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Background and Aims Loop formation can impede endoscope advancement, destabilize the tip, and cause pain. Strategies to mitigate looping include torque-based reduction maneuvers, variable stiffness shafts, and abdominal splinting. In some cases, these strategies are insufficient, and there is need for novel instruments. Loop formation is of particular concern in colonoscopy, but it can also impact performance of other endoscopic procedures such as enteroscopy and altered-anatomy ERCP. In this case series we demonstrate the utility of a novel rigidizing overtube (Pathfinder; Neptune Medical, Burlingame, Calif, USA) in colonoscopy and other endoscopic procedures where loop management is critical. Methods We describe our initial experience with the Pathfinder overtube in 29 patients. The overtube is 85 cm long and can accommodate a pediatric colonoscope. In its native state, the overtube is extremely flexible. Once the overtube is advanced to the desired location, application of a vacuum to the device causes the device to become 15 times stiffer. The endoscope can then be advanced through the overtube without loop formation in the region that the overtube traverses. Results The overtube was used in 29 patients to assist with difficult procedures. Patients were predominantly men (n = 18; 62.1%), with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, 57-72). One patient received an upper endoscopy (3.4%), 24 received colonoscopy (82.8%), and 4 received enteroscopy (13.8%). The overtube was used in 12 procedures for incomplete colonoscopy (41.4%), 6 for depth (20.7%), and 11 for stability (37.9%). Colonoscopy was performed in the setting of screening (n = 3), surveillance given polyp history (n = 7), referrals for polyp removal (n = 10), workup of iron deficiency anemia (n = 2), and incomplete colonoscopy (n = 1). The lower endoscopy cases had a median cecal intubation time of 5 minutes (interquartile range, 4.25-7). Enteroscopy was performed in 4 patients: In one patient the distal 60 cm of the ileum was examined with a pediatric colonoscope to exclude ileitis, in another the overtube was used to stabilize a 6-mm endoscope to traverse a tight Crohn’s ileocolonic stricture, in a third patient altered-anatomy ERCP was performed using an enteroscope through the overtube to reach a hepaticojejunostomy, and in the final patient upper enteroscopy was performed and the mid-jejunum was reached. We present 4 cases that demonstrate the use of the overtube. There were no adverse events. Conclusions Initial experience with a novel rigidizing overtube suggests that this tool can be useful in colonoscopy and other endoscopic procedures affected by looping.

Endoscopists are at risk of developing musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs), and few receive training on ergonomics. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum (ETC) on work-related MSI risk during clinical colonoscopy.Novice endoscopists underwent a simulation-based ETC and were compared with an historical control group who received simulation-based training without ergonomics training. The ETC included a didactic lecture and video on ergonomics in colonoscopy, feedback from supervisors on ergonomics, and an ergonomics checklist to augment feedback and promote self-reflection. Participants were assessed using the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA). The primary outcome was participants' REBA scores during 2 clinical colonoscopies 4 to 6 weeks after training.In clinical colonoscopy, the ETC group had superior REBA scores (clinical procedure 1: median score, 6 vs 11; P .001; clinical procedure 2: median score, 6 vs 10; P .001). In a simulated colonoscopy, the ETC group did not have significantly different REBA or RULA scores between baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks after (REBA: median scores of 5, 5, and 5, respectively; P.05; RULA: median scores of 6, 6, and 6, respectively; P.05). The control group had worsening REBA and RULA scores during the study timeline (REBA: median scores of 5 at baseline, 9 immediately after training, and 9 at 4-6 weeks after training; P .001; RULA: median scores of 6, 7, and 7, respectively; P = .04) during simulated procedures.A simulation-based ETC is associated with reduced risk of MSI during endoscopy. Although the REBA score was improved, the intervention group was still within the medium-risk range.

Background and Aims Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication. Results Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P Conclusions Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

Background and Aims EMR is used widely for treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas ≥ 2 cm. Recurrence at the resection site occurs in 10% to 30% of cases. Methods Records of consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection over a 4-year period were reviewed retrospectively. In the first part of the study period, our routine practice was to use argon plasma coagulation (APC) to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. In the second part of the study period, we changed our practice to use avulsion to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. We analyzed the effect of this change in practice on recurrence rates after EMR. Results Two hundred twenty-three resected lesions were analyzed. Fifty-nine (26%) were treated with en-bloc EMR, 55 (25%) by piecemeal EMR with complete snare removal of all visible neoplasia, 63 (28%) by piecemeal EMR with APC of visible residual neoplasia, and 46 (21%) by piecemeal EMR with avulsion of visible residual neoplasia. There was no significant difference in adverse event rates among the 4 groups. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 4.2%, 3.0%, 59.3%, and 10.3%, respectively. The recurrence rate for patients treated with avulsion was significantly lower than for those treated with APC (odds ratio, .079; P Conclusions After exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR, avulsion is superior to APC for treatment of residual visible neoplasia. Compared with APC, avulsion significantly decreases the recurrence rate without significantly increasing the risk of the procedure.