Search

BackgroundUnderwater polypectomy (UWP) of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions is well described, but reports of UWP for lesions ≤ 20 mm in size, which account for > 95% of polyps encountered in routine clinical practice, are limited. We assessed the feasibility of UWP in routine practice across various sites for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in size.MethodsA multicenter retrospective study was performed on pooled data from nine colonoscopists at 3 U.S., 1 Taiwanese and 2 Italian sites. Outcomes related to UWP on lesions ≤ 20 mm in size were analyzed.ResultsIn 117 patients, UWP netted 169 lesions. Polypectomy by hot (HSP, 54%) or cold (CSP, 41%) snare, and cold forceps (CFP, 5%) were performed successfully without endoscopic evidence of residual neoplasia or immediate clinically significant adverse events. The majority (74.6%) were tubular adenomas; 60.9% were from the proximal colon. Histopathologic margins were positive in 4 and unavailable in 26 CSP and 24 HSP specimens. The remainder had negative resection margins on pathologic reports.ConclusionUWP for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in routine practice across multiple sites confirms the feasibility and acceptability of this technique. Improvement of resection outcomes by UWP in routine practice deserves further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundA low adenoma detection rate (ADR) increases risks of interval cancers (ICs). Proximal colon flat polyps, e.g. serrated lesions (SLs), are difficult to find. Missed proximal colon flat lesions likely contribute to IC.AimsWe compared chromoendoscopy with water exchange (CWE), water exchange (WE) and air insufflation (AI) in detecting adenomas in screening colonoscopy.MethodsAfter split-dose preparation, 480 veterans were randomized to AI, WE and CWE.ResultsPrimary outcome of proximal ADR (55.6% vs 53.4% vs 52.2%, respectively) were similar in all groups. Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and adenoma per positive colonoscopy (APPC) were comparable. Detection rate of proximal colon SLs was significantly higher for CWE and WE than AI (26.3%, 23.6% and 11.3%, respectively, p = 0.002). Limitations: single operator; SLs only surrogate markers of but not IC.ConclusionsWhen an endoscopist achieves high-quality AI examinations with overall ADR twice (61.6%) the recommended standard (30%), use of WE and CWE does not produce further improvement in proximal or overall ADR. Comparable APC and APPC confirm equivalent withdrawal inspection techniques. WE alone is sufficient to significantly improve detection of proximal SLs. The impact of increased detection of proximal SLs by WE on prevention of IC deserves to be studied. This study is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT#01607255).

Background and Aims: Water exchange (WE) and cap-assisted colonoscopy separately have been shown to reduce pain during insertion in unsedated patients. We hypothesized that compared with WE, WE cap-assisted colonoscopy (WECAC) could significantly lower real-time maximum insertion pain (RTMIP)., Methods: Veterans without escort were recruited, randomized, blinded, and examined at 3 U.S. Veterans Affairs sites. The primary outcome was RTMIP, defined as the highest segmental pain (0 = no pain, 10 = most severe pain) during insertion., Results: Randomization (WECAC, 143; WE, 137) produced an even distribution of a racially diverse group of men and women of low socioeconomic status. The intention-to-treat analysis reported results of WECAC and WE for cecal intubation (93% and 94.2%, respectively), mean RTMIP (2.9 [standard deviation {SD}, 2.5] and 2.6 [SD, 2.4]), proportion of patients with no pain (28.7% and 27.7%), mean insertion time (18.6 minutes [SD, 15.6] and 18.8 minutes [SD, 15.9]), and overall adenoma detection rate (48.3% and 55.1%); all P values were >.05. When RTMIP was binarized as "no pain" (0) versus "some pain" (1-10) or "low pain" (0-7) versus "high pain" (8-10), different significant predictors of RTMIP were identified., Conclusions: Unsedated colonoscopy was appropriate for unescorted veterans. WE alone was sufficient. Adding a cap did not reduce RTMIP. Patient-specific factors and application of WE with insertion suction of infused water contributed to high and low RTMIP, respectively. For unescorted patients, selecting those with low anxiety, avoiding low body mass index, history of depression or self-reported poor health, and complying with the steps of WE can minimize RTMIP to ensure success of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03160859.)., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following author disclosed financial relationships: S. Friedland: Consultant for Intuitive and Capsovision. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Research support for this study was provided by Veterans Affairs Clinical Merit Review funds., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE., Methods: A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified., Results: Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time., Conclusions: An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE., (© 2022 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background and study aims  Adverse events are uncommon with cold snaring, but cold techniques are generally reserved for lesions ≤ 9 mm out of concern for incomplete resection or inability to mechanically resect larger lesions. In a non-distended, water-filled lumen, colorectal lesions are not stretched, enabling capture and en bloc resection of large lesions. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of underwater cold snare resection (UCSR) without submucosal injection (SI) of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky (≤ 5 mm elevation) lesions with small, thin wire snares. Patients and methods  Retrospective analysis of an observational cohort of lesions removed by UCSR during colonoscopy. A single endoscopist performed procedures using a small thin wire (9-mm diameter) cold or (10-mm diameter) hybrid snare. Results  Fifty-three lesions (mean 15.8 mm [SD 6.9]; range 10-35 mm) were removed by UCSR from 44 patients. Compared to a historical cohort, significantly more lesions were resected en bloc by UCSR (84.9 % [45/53]; P  = 0.04) compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (64.0 % [32/50]). Results were driven by high en bloc resection rates for 10- to 19-mm lesions (97.3 % [36/37]; P  = 0.01). Multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed en bloc resection was significantly associated with UCSR compared to conventional EMR (OR 3.47, P  = 0.027). Omission of SI and forgoing prophylactic clipping of post-resection sites did not result in adverse outcomes. Conclusions  UCSR of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky colorectal lesions is feasible with high en bloc resection rates without adverse outcomes. Omission of SI and prophylactic clipping decreased resource utilization with economic benefits. UCSR deserves further evaluation in a prospective comparative study., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

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., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR., Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection., Results: Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015)., Conclusions: Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.)., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Water exchange provides salvage cleansing and improves adenoma detection, but drawbacks include prolonged procedure time. Cap-assisted colonoscopy decreases cecal intubation time but is limited by impaired views when feces lodge in the cap., Objective: To investigate the impact of combined water-exchange and cap-assisted colonoscopy (WCC) on detection of adenomas and proximal colon serrated polyps., Design: Retrospective, single-center, single-colonoscopist, consecutive group observational study., Setting: Veterans Affairs outpatient endoscopy suite., Patients: Outpatients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy., Intervention: WCC data collected from 100 consecutive patients were compared to a control group of 101 consecutive patients examined with conventional air insufflation colonoscopy during the prior 4-month period., Main Outcome Measurements: Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas detected per colonoscopy, proximal colon serrated polyp detection rate, and proximal colon serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate., Results: Compared with controls, the WCC group had a higher polyp detection rate (93.0% vs 84.2%; P = .07), ADR (75.0% vs 59.4%; P = .02), proximal colon ADR (61.0% vs 47.5%; P = .07), proximal colon serrated polyp detection rate (24.0% vs 9.9%; P = .009), number of adenomas per colonoscopy (2.70 vs 1.50; P = .002), and mean number of proximal colon serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.38 vs 0.12; P = .004)., Limitations: Retrospective study; single, unblinded endoscopist., Conclusion: ADR and adenomas per colonoscopy are both sensitive indicators of colonoscopy quality. WCC merges two simple methods to improve the performance of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. The data suggest that larger, prospective studies are necessary to determine if there are differences between water-exchange combined with cap-assisted maneuvers and the individual components used alone in lesion detection in screening and surveillance colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy plays an important and central role in current colorectal cancer screening and prevention programs, but it is an imperfect tool. Adjunct techniques may help improve the performance of colonoscopy to increase the detection of polyps with neoplastic potential. This study investigates the novel approach of combined water-exchange and cap-assisted colonoscopy (WCC) and its impact on adenoma detection., Methods: A single-center single-colonoscopist consecutive group observational study to compare WCC with conventional air insufflation colonoscopy was performed. Data were collected from 50 consecutive patients undergoing outpatient colorectal cancer screening or polyp surveillance with WCC. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and adenomas detected per colonoscopy (APC) were compared to a control group of 101 consecutive patients examined with conventional air colonoscopy during the immediate prior period., Results: Cecal intubation was achieved in all patients. As an emerging and alternative quality metric for colonoscopy, APC was significantly higher in the WCC group (3.08 vs. 1.50, p=0.0021). The conventional quality metric, overall ADR, was higher in the WCC group compared to the air colonoscopy group (70.0% vs. 59.4%, p=0.22). This difference was not statistically significant, likely due to a type II error., Conclusion: The observational data suggest APC is a more sensitive indicator of quality colonoscopy than ADR. WCC shows promise as a novel technique that merges two simple adjunct methods to help improve the performance of colonoscopy. The data suggest larger, prospective studies are necessary to determine the true impact of water-exchange combined with cap-assisted maneuvers.

Originally regarded as a rare affliction notable for its distinctive evolution to "bronze diabetes," hereditary hemochromatosis is now recognized as the most common genetic disorder in populations of European ancestry. Recent advances in our understanding of iron metabolism, the identification of the gene responsible for hemochromatosis, and large epidemiologic studies have changed the diagnostic approach toward patients with hereditary hemochromatosis and other forms of iron overload. This article reviews the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical features, diagnostic testing, and management of hemochromatosis for the primary care provider.