TY - JOUR
T1 - Water-assisted colonoscopy
T2 - an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations
AU - Cadoni, Sergio
AU - Ishaq, Sauid
AU - Hassan, Cesare
AU - Falt, Přemysl
AU - Fuccio, Lorenzo
AU - Siau, Keith
AU - Leung, Joseph W.
AU - Anderson, John
AU - Binmoeller, Kenneth F.
AU - Radaelli, Franco
AU - Rutter, Matt D.
AU - Sugimoto, Shinya
AU - Muhammad, Humayun
AU - Bhandari, Pradeep
AU - Draganov, Peter V.
AU - de Groen, Piet
AU - Wang, Andrew Y.
AU - Yen, Andrew W.
AU - Hamerski, Chris
AU - Thorlacius, Henrik
AU - Neumann, Helmut
AU - Ramirez, Francisco
AU - Mulder, Chris J.J.
AU - Albéniz, Eduardo
AU - Amato, Arnaldo
AU - Arai, Makoto
AU - Bak, Adrian
AU - Barret, Maximilien
AU - Bayupurnama, Putut
AU - Cheung, Ramsey
AU - Ching, Hey Long
AU - Cohen, Hartley
AU - Dolwani, Sunil
AU - Friedland, Shai
AU - Harada, Hideaki
AU - Hsieh, Yu Hsi
AU - Hayee, Bu
AU - Kuwai, Toshio
AU - Lorenzo-Zúñiga, Vicente
AU - Liggi, Mauro
AU - Mizukami, Takeshi
AU - Mura, Donatella
AU - Nylander, David
AU - Olafsson, Snorri
AU - Paggi, Silvia
AU - Pan, Yanglin
AU - Parra-Blanco, Adolfo
AU - Ransford, Rupert
AU - Rodriguez-Sanchez, Joaquìn
AU - Senturk, Hakan
AU - Suzuki, Noriko
AU - Tseng, Chih Wei
AU - Uchima, Hugo
AU - Uedo, Noriya
AU - Leung, Felix W.
N1 - Funding Information:
DISCLOSURE: The following author received research support for this study in part from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and VA Clinical Merit Research Grants: F. W. Leung. In addition, the following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. Ishaq, N. Suzuki: Consultant for Olympus. C. Hassan: Consultant for Fujifilm, Pentax, and Medtronic. J. W. Leung: Equipment loan and investigator for Olympus. P. Bhandari: Research support and honorarium from Fujifilm, Olympus, and Pentax. P. V. Draganov: Consultant for Olympus, Cook, BSC, Medtronic, MicroTech, Fuji, and Lumendi. H. Neumann: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Norgine, SonoScape, Motus GI, Medtronic, Amgen, Jinshan, and Falk. S. Dolwani: Researcher for Odin Vision. B. Hayee: Consultant for Medtronic UK, Surgease Innovations UK, and Ampersand Ltd UK; reearch support from Fujifilm Europe. S. Olafsson: Consultant for Takeda. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.
Funding Information:
DISCLOSURE: The following author received research support for this study in part from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and VA Clinical Merit Research Grants: F. W. Leung. In addition, the following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. Ishaq, N. Suzuki: Consultant for Olympus. C. Hassan: Consultant for Fujifilm, Pentax, and Medtronic. J. W. Leung: Equipment loan and investigator for Olympus. P. Bhandari: Research support and honorarium from Fujifilm, Olympus, and Pentax. P. V. Draganov: Consultant for Olympus, Cook, BSC, Medtronic, MicroTech, Fuji, and Lumendi. H. Neumann: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Norgine, SonoScape, Motus GI, Medtronic, Amgen, Jinshan, and Falk. S. Dolwani: Researcher for Odin Vision. B. Hayee: Consultant for Medtronic UK, Surgease Innovations UK, and Ampersand Ltd UK; reearch support from Fujifilm Europe. S. Olafsson: Consultant for Takeda. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099123178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099123178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.011
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 33069706
AN - SCOPUS:85099123178
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 93
SP - 1411-1420.e18
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 6
ER -