Abstract
Background: Although the efficacy of water-assisted colonoscopy is well established, the role of water immersion sigmoidoscopy (WIS) remains unclear. We compared WIS with carbon dioxide insufflation sigmoidoscopy (CO 2 S) on patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a single-center quality improvement program about patients undergoing unsedated screening sigmoidoscopy (WIS and CO 2 S) between May 2019 and January 2020. Outcomes studied included the following: Rates of severe pain <17% (score of ≥7 on a numeric rating scale of 0-10, and on a Likert scale), willingness to repeat the procedure without sedation, adequate bowel cleanliness >75% (proportion of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score: 2-3) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: In total, 234 patients (111 WIS; 123 CO 2 S) were included. All patients were aged 58 years and 58.9% were female; baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of severe pain (WIS: 16.5%, CO 2 S: 13.8%; P = 0.586), willingness to repeat the unsedated procedure (WIS: 82.3%, CO 2 S: 84.5%; P = 0.713), adequate bowel cleanliness (WIS: 78.4%, CO 2 S: 78%, P = 0.999) or ADR (WIS: 25.2%, CO 2 S: 16.3%; P = 0.106) between groups. However, average procedure times were longer with WIS (9.06 min) compared to CO 2 S (6.45 min; P < 0.001). Overall, 29.6% of women reported that they would repeat sigmoidoscopy only if sedated. Conclusions: WIS does not ameliorate tolerance to and quality of sigmoidoscopy screening measured by several scores. When offered a choice, the women's willingness to repeat WIS or CO 2 S without sedation was poor and raises concern on the opportunity of screening sigmoidoscopy without sedation in these subjects.
Author supplied keywords
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Calcara, C., Aseni, P., Siau, K., Gambitta, P., & Cadoni, S. (2022). Water immersion sigmoidoscopy versus standard insufflation for colorectal cancer screening: A cohort study. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology, 28(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_198_21
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.