Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

  • Sergio Cadoni
  • , Sauid Ishaq*
  • , Cesare Hassan
  • , P. emysl Falt
  • , Lorenzo Fuccio
  • , Keith Siau
  • , Joseph W. Leung
  • , John Anderson
  • , Kenneth F. Binmoeller
  • , Franco Radaelli
  • , Matt D. Rutter
  • , Shinya Sugimoto
  • , Humayun Muhammad
  • , Pradeep Bhandari
  • , Peter V. Draganov
  • , Piet de Groen
  • , Andrew Y. Wang
  • , Andrew W. Yen
  • , Chris Hamerski
  • , Henrik Thorlacius
  • Helmut Neumann, Francisco Ramirez, Chris J. J. Mulder, Eduardo Albéniz, Arnaldo Amato, Makoto Arai, Adrian Bak, Maximilien Barret, Putut Bayupurnama, Ramsey Cheung, Hey-Long Ching, Hartley Cohen, Sunil Dolwani, Shai Friedland, Hideaki Harada, Yu-Hsi Hsieh, Bu Hayee, Toshio Kuwai, Vicente Lorenzo-Zúñiga, Mauro Liggi, Takeshi Mizukami, Donatella Mura, David Nylander, Snorri Olafsson, Silvia Paggi, Yanglin Pan, Adolfo Parra-Blanco, Rupert Ransford, Joaquìn Rodriguez-Sanchez, Hakan Senturk, Noriko Suzuki, Chih-Wei Tseng, Hugo Uchima, Noriya Uedo, Felix W. Leung
*Corresponding author for this work
  • ATS Sardegna - ASSL Carbonia
  • Birmingham City University
  • Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Rome, Italy
  • Palacky University—University Hospital Olomouc
  • Charles University
  • Oncologia ed Ematologia Pediatrica “Lalla Seràgnoli” Ospedale Sant'Orsola Malpighi Università di Bologna
  • Royal College of Physicians
  • University of California at Davis
  • Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • California Pacific Medical Center
  • Valduce Hospital
  • North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
  • Medical School
  • Keio University
  • Roehampton University
  • Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust
  • University of Florida
  • University of Minnesota Twin Cities
  • University of Virginia
  • Lund University
  • University Medical Centre Mainz
  • Mayo Clinic Scottsdale-Phoenix, Arizona
  • VU Vrije Universiteit
  • Hospital Virgen del Camino
  • Chiba University
  • University of British Columbia
  • Université Paris 5
  • Gadjah Mada University
  • Stanford University
  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
  • Cardiff University
  • Department of Gastroenterology, New Tokyo Hospital, Gastroenterology, Matsudo, Chiba, Japan
  • Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, Dalin Township, Taiwan
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Hospital Organization, Japan
  • Hospital Universitario La Fe
  • NHO Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Endoscopy Center, Yokosuka, Japan
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Telemark Hospital
  • Xijing Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Xian, Republic of China
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
  • Wye Valley NHS Trust
  • Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
  • Bezmialem Vakif University
  • St Mark's Hospital
  • Centro Medico Teknon
  • Osaka International Cancer Institute, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka, Japan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1411-1420.e18
JournalGastrointestinal endoscopy
Volume93
Issue number6
Early online date2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this