检验预防原则:结肠镜检查中用于灌溉的自来水和无菌水的范围审查比较。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Canadian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2025-07-10 Print Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1503/cjs.012724
Hilalion San Ahn, Alexie Leclerc, Jennifer Shamess, Jordi Pardo, Catherine Dube, Alaa Rostom, Natalia Calo, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel I McIsaac, David Smith, Husein Moloo
{"title":"检验预防原则:结肠镜检查中用于灌溉的自来水和无菌水的范围审查比较。","authors":"Hilalion San Ahn, Alexie Leclerc, Jennifer Shamess, Jordi Pardo, Catherine Dube, Alaa Rostom, Natalia Calo, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel I McIsaac, David Smith, Husein Moloo","doi":"10.1503/cjs.012724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most guidelines recommend use of sterile water in single-use plastic bottles for irrigation in colonoscopy, a recommendation extrapolated from case reports of infection linked to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our objective was to identify evidence exploring the impact of tap versus sterile water in colonoscopy on patient, health care resource, and environmental outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a scoping review and included any study examining the effects of irrigation source during colonoscopy. A health information specialist searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to March 2024 using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies standards. Two reviewers performed screening and data extraction using a standardized form. We conducted a quantitative analysis of patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 335 identified articles, we included 3. All were prospective studies published between 1996 and 2002. Overall, 137 colonoscopies and 38 flexible sigmoidoscopies were reported. Two studies compared sterile versus tap water, with 7 of 118 (6%) and 35 of 327 (11%) positive water cultures, respectively. There were no clinical adverse events. One study compared tap water at warm versus room temperature and measured patient pain scores (2/10 and 4/10, respectively). Infectious complications were not reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is limited evidence to support either tap or sterile water in irrigation for colonoscopy, but potable tap water may be a safe choice and is environmentally and economically more beneficial than sterile water. In the context of the climate crisis and increasing economic health care burden, tap water in reusable bottles should be strongly considered for irrigation in colonoscopy. <b>Registration:</b> Open Science Framework Registry, https://osf.io/8dgck.</p>","PeriodicalId":9573,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Surgery","volume":"68 4","pages":"E281-E288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12263332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing the precautionary principle: a scoping review comparing potable tap and sterile water for irrigation in colonoscopy.\",\"authors\":\"Hilalion San Ahn, Alexie Leclerc, Jennifer Shamess, Jordi Pardo, Catherine Dube, Alaa Rostom, Natalia Calo, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel I McIsaac, David Smith, Husein Moloo\",\"doi\":\"10.1503/cjs.012724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most guidelines recommend use of sterile water in single-use plastic bottles for irrigation in colonoscopy, a recommendation extrapolated from case reports of infection linked to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our objective was to identify evidence exploring the impact of tap versus sterile water in colonoscopy on patient, health care resource, and environmental outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a scoping review and included any study examining the effects of irrigation source during colonoscopy. A health information specialist searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to March 2024 using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies standards. Two reviewers performed screening and data extraction using a standardized form. We conducted a quantitative analysis of patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 335 identified articles, we included 3. All were prospective studies published between 1996 and 2002. Overall, 137 colonoscopies and 38 flexible sigmoidoscopies were reported. Two studies compared sterile versus tap water, with 7 of 118 (6%) and 35 of 327 (11%) positive water cultures, respectively. There were no clinical adverse events. One study compared tap water at warm versus room temperature and measured patient pain scores (2/10 and 4/10, respectively). Infectious complications were not reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is limited evidence to support either tap or sterile water in irrigation for colonoscopy, but potable tap water may be a safe choice and is environmentally and economically more beneficial than sterile water. In the context of the climate crisis and increasing economic health care burden, tap water in reusable bottles should be strongly considered for irrigation in colonoscopy. <b>Registration:</b> Open Science Framework Registry, https://osf.io/8dgck.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"68 4\",\"pages\":\"E281-E288\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12263332/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.012724\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.012724","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数指南建议在结肠镜检查中使用一次性塑料瓶中的无菌水进行冲洗,这一建议是从内镜逆行胆管造影术相关感染的病例报告中推断出来的。我们的目的是寻找证据,探讨结肠镜检查中自来水与无菌水对患者、医疗资源和环境结果的影响。方法:我们进行了一项范围综述,并纳入了所有在结肠镜检查中检查灌源效果的研究。一名健康信息专家使用电子搜索策略标准的同行评审对Embase、MEDLINE、CINAHL和Web of Science进行了从成立到2024年3月的搜索。两名审稿人使用标准化表格进行筛选和数据提取。我们对患者结果进行了定量分析。结果:在鉴定的335篇文章中,我们纳入了3篇。所有研究都是在1996年至2002年间发表的前瞻性研究。总共报道了137例结肠镜检查和38例乙状结肠镜检查。两项研究将无菌水与自来水进行了比较,118人中有7人(6%)培养阳性,327人中有35人(11%)培养阳性。无临床不良事件。一项研究比较了温水和室温下的自来水,并测量了患者的疼痛评分(分别为2/10和4/10)。感染并发症未见报道。结论:支持自来水或无菌水用于结肠镜冲洗的证据有限,但饮用自来水可能是一种安全的选择,并且在环境和经济上比无菌水更有益。在气候危机和经济卫生保健负担增加的背景下,应强烈考虑在结肠镜检查中使用可重复使用的瓶装自来水进行灌溉。注册:Open Science Framework Registry, https://osf.io/8dgck。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing the precautionary principle: a scoping review comparing potable tap and sterile water for irrigation in colonoscopy.

Background: Most guidelines recommend use of sterile water in single-use plastic bottles for irrigation in colonoscopy, a recommendation extrapolated from case reports of infection linked to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our objective was to identify evidence exploring the impact of tap versus sterile water in colonoscopy on patient, health care resource, and environmental outcomes.

Methods: We performed a scoping review and included any study examining the effects of irrigation source during colonoscopy. A health information specialist searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to March 2024 using Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies standards. Two reviewers performed screening and data extraction using a standardized form. We conducted a quantitative analysis of patient outcomes.

Results: Of 335 identified articles, we included 3. All were prospective studies published between 1996 and 2002. Overall, 137 colonoscopies and 38 flexible sigmoidoscopies were reported. Two studies compared sterile versus tap water, with 7 of 118 (6%) and 35 of 327 (11%) positive water cultures, respectively. There were no clinical adverse events. One study compared tap water at warm versus room temperature and measured patient pain scores (2/10 and 4/10, respectively). Infectious complications were not reported.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence to support either tap or sterile water in irrigation for colonoscopy, but potable tap water may be a safe choice and is environmentally and economically more beneficial than sterile water. In the context of the climate crisis and increasing economic health care burden, tap water in reusable bottles should be strongly considered for irrigation in colonoscopy. Registration: Open Science Framework Registry, https://osf.io/8dgck.

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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
120
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of CJS is to contribute to the meaningful continuing medical education of Canadian surgical specialists, and to provide surgeons with an effective vehicle for the dissemination of observations in the areas of clinical and basic science research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信