Abstract
Background Colonoscopy screenings are the most valuable tool in preventing colorectal mortalities. The traditional technique uses air-insufflation, but water-infusion is a newer colonoscopy technique which is rapidly becoming standard of care, as it may decrease patient discomfort and the need for analgesics and anesthetics. Research is still ongoing as to the comparability of detection rates between the two techniques. The purpose of this study was to determine if training residents in underwater colonoscopies is more effective than training them in traditional air-insufflation colonoscopies.
Methods This study was a retrospective, single-institution study that compared the patient-related and procedure-related variables of 183 colonoscopies performed by two cohorts of physicians. In the first cohort, the gastroenterologist with a resident trainee performed an air colonoscopy. In the second, the gastroenterologist and resident trainee performed an underwater colonoscopy.
Results For patient-related variables, there was no significant difference in age, previous abdominal surgeries, or bowel preparation. There were more females in the underwater group, which is significant as females tend to be harder to scope due to the increased tortuosity of their colon. For procedural outcomes, there was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, or procedural complications (hypotension, bradycardia). On average, the water colonoscopies required less midazolam and fentanyl, although they did have a longer procedural time.
Conclusions Overall, these findings suggest that training residents in underwater colonoscopies may increase patient comfort and decrease complications with comparable success rates.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
San Joaquin General Hospital's Institutional Review Board
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
