评估初级内窥镜医师用水辅助结肠镜检查:一项随机对照试验。

IF 3.3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Nuttida Manoros, Nithi Thinrungroj, Wasuwit Wanchaitanawong, Kanokwan Pinyopornpanish, Phuripong Kijdamrongthum, Apinya Leerapun, Taned Chitapanarux, Satawat Thongsawat, Ong-Ard Praisontarangkul
{"title":"评估初级内窥镜医师用水辅助结肠镜检查:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Nuttida Manoros, Nithi Thinrungroj, Wasuwit Wanchaitanawong, Kanokwan Pinyopornpanish, Phuripong Kijdamrongthum, Apinya Leerapun, Taned Chitapanarux, Satawat Thongsawat, Ong-Ard Praisontarangkul","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) using the water immersion technique with conventional carbon dioxide insufflation colonoscopy (CC) in novice endoscopists, focusing on procedure time, safety and learning curves.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, randomised (1:1), single-centre trial at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand. Six gastroenterology fellows with <150 prior colonoscopies received standardised training before performing elective screening colonoscopies using either WAC or CC techniques. Patients were randomly assigned to WAC or CC groups. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included technical failure, procedural difficulty, patient discomfort, complications, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 250 randomised patients, 230 completed the protocol (WAC, n=113; CC, n=117). Mean CIT was comparable between groups (10.6±4.2 min vs 9.8±3.9 min; p=0.35). Technical failure occurred in 6.2% of WAC and 5.1% of CC procedures, with no significant differences in procedural difficulty ratings, analgesic requirements or patient discomfort scores. ADR was similar between arms (40.7% vs 33.3%; p=0.25). Learning curves demonstrated parallel, progressive reductions in CIT among fellows in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WAC is a safe and effective alternative to CC for novice endoscopists, with similar procedure times, learning curves and safety profiles. These findings support the inclusion of WAC in gastroenterology training programmes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>TCTR20230324001.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104895/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing water-assisted colonoscopy in beginner endoscopists: a randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Nuttida Manoros, Nithi Thinrungroj, Wasuwit Wanchaitanawong, Kanokwan Pinyopornpanish, Phuripong Kijdamrongthum, Apinya Leerapun, Taned Chitapanarux, Satawat Thongsawat, Ong-Ard Praisontarangkul\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001561\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) using the water immersion technique with conventional carbon dioxide insufflation colonoscopy (CC) in novice endoscopists, focusing on procedure time, safety and learning curves.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, randomised (1:1), single-centre trial at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand. Six gastroenterology fellows with <150 prior colonoscopies received standardised training before performing elective screening colonoscopies using either WAC or CC techniques. Patients were randomly assigned to WAC or CC groups. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included technical failure, procedural difficulty, patient discomfort, complications, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 250 randomised patients, 230 completed the protocol (WAC, n=113; CC, n=117). Mean CIT was comparable between groups (10.6±4.2 min vs 9.8±3.9 min; p=0.35). Technical failure occurred in 6.2% of WAC and 5.1% of CC procedures, with no significant differences in procedural difficulty ratings, analgesic requirements or patient discomfort scores. ADR was similar between arms (40.7% vs 33.3%; p=0.25). Learning curves demonstrated parallel, progressive reductions in CIT among fellows in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WAC is a safe and effective alternative to CC for novice endoscopists, with similar procedure times, learning curves and safety profiles. These findings support the inclusion of WAC in gastroenterology training programmes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>TCTR20230324001.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104895/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001561\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2024-001561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较水浸法结肠镜检查(WAC)与常规二氧化碳充气结肠镜检查(CC)在新手内镜检查中的应用,重点分析手术时间、安全性和学习曲线。方法:我们在泰国清迈大学医院进行了一项前瞻性、随机(1:1)、单中心试验。结果:在250名随机患者中,230名完成了方案(WAC, n=113;CC, n = 117)。两组间平均CIT具有可比性(10.6±4.2 min vs 9.8±3.9 min;p = 0.35)。6.2%的WAC和5.1%的CC手术发生了技术失败,在手术难度评分、镇痛要求或患者不适评分方面没有显著差异。两组间不良反应相似(40.7% vs 33.3%;p = 0.25)。学习曲线显示,两组受试者的CIT水平呈平行、渐进式下降。结论:WAC是一种安全有效的替代CC的新手内镜医师,具有相似的手术时间,学习曲线和安全性。这些发现支持将WAC纳入胃肠病学培训计划。试验注册号:TCTR20230324001。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing water-assisted colonoscopy in beginner endoscopists: a randomised controlled trial.

Objective: To compare water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) using the water immersion technique with conventional carbon dioxide insufflation colonoscopy (CC) in novice endoscopists, focusing on procedure time, safety and learning curves.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomised (1:1), single-centre trial at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand. Six gastroenterology fellows with <150 prior colonoscopies received standardised training before performing elective screening colonoscopies using either WAC or CC techniques. Patients were randomly assigned to WAC or CC groups. The primary outcome was caecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included technical failure, procedural difficulty, patient discomfort, complications, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Results: Of 250 randomised patients, 230 completed the protocol (WAC, n=113; CC, n=117). Mean CIT was comparable between groups (10.6±4.2 min vs 9.8±3.9 min; p=0.35). Technical failure occurred in 6.2% of WAC and 5.1% of CC procedures, with no significant differences in procedural difficulty ratings, analgesic requirements or patient discomfort scores. ADR was similar between arms (40.7% vs 33.3%; p=0.25). Learning curves demonstrated parallel, progressive reductions in CIT among fellows in both groups.

Conclusion: WAC is a safe and effective alternative to CC for novice endoscopists, with similar procedure times, learning curves and safety profiles. These findings support the inclusion of WAC in gastroenterology training programmes.

Trial registration number: TCTR20230324001.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
BMJ Open Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Gastroenterology is an online-only, peer-reviewed, open access gastroenterology journal, dedicated to publishing high-quality medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas of gastroenterology. It is the open access companion journal of Gut and is co-owned by the British Society of Gastroenterology. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信