Application of water injection in colonoscopy of children

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-7157.2022.01.017

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the cecal intubation time and anesthetic dose in children colonoscopy using air insufflation and water injection; and explore the efficacy of water injection in the children.

Method

A total of 71 children (age of the moon≤72 months) undergoing colonoscopy in the department of pediatric gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Jilin University from January 2019 to September 2020 were enrolled into the study. 35 children in the experimental group underwent water injection and the remainder in the control group would undergo traditional air insufflation. SPSS statistical method was used to analyze and compare the differences between the two groups of patients, such as the cecal intubation time, anesthetic dose, and the time from induction of anesthesia to awakening.

Results

The cecal intubation rate was 100% in the observation group and 94.4% in the control group (no statistically significant difference). The cecal intubation time (8.66±4.20)min was significantly shorter in the observation group than in the control group (16.69±9.22)min (P<0.05). The dosage of propofol before reaching the cecum in the observation group (64.00±18.50) mg was significantly lower than in the control group (83.33±25.72) mg(P<0.05). In the analysis of the correlation factors (using spearman correlation analysis) of volume of water infused in water injection vs bowel preparation conditions demonstrated significant correlation between the two (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Water injection is safe and reliable in infant colonoscopy, and suitable for clinical promotion and application.

Key words: Colonoscopy, Water injection, Air insufflation, Cecal intubation time

Pei Shao, Zhuang Pi, Yuan Zhong, Nan Wang, Libo Wang. Application of water injection in colonoscopy of children[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(Electronic Edition), 2022, 09(01): 25-29.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhwcnjdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-7157.2022.01.017

https://zhwcnjdzzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V09/I01/25

Figures/Tables 5

References 15

[1]	Park JH. Pediatric colonoscopy: The changing patterns and single institutional experience over a decade [J]. Clin Endosc，2018，51(2)：137-141.
[2]	Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F，et al. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev，2015，5：CD009863.
[3]	Hsieh YH, Leung FW. The impact of water-aided methods on pain reduction and adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy[J]. Adv Dig Med，2018，5(1-2)：7-15.
[4]	陈小林，刘俊，任宏宇．水交换结肠镜与注气式结肠镜检查的对比研究[J]．中华消化内镜杂志，2015，32(10)：659，662.
[5]	黄贺，施宏，陈素玉，等．注水与注气在结肠镜进镜过程中的随机对照研究[J]．中华消化内镜杂志，2017，34(3)：186-189.
[6]	孟小芬，李华，杨屹，等．慢性腹泻患者结肠镜检查肠道准备方法的临床研究[J]．中国内镜杂志，2019，25(3)：54-57.
[7]	(日)工藤进英原著；任旭，李兆申等主审；唐秀芬等主译. 结肠镜插入法第2版[M]. 上海：第二军医大学出版社，2016：31-35.
[8]	Jun WU, Bing HU. Comparative effectiveness of water infusion vs air insufflation in colonoscopy: A meta-analysis[J]. Colorectal Dis，2013，15(4): 404-409.
[9]	何飞云，叶斌，刘双亮，等. 注水辅助结肠镜检查的应用价值研究[J]. 浙江医学，2019，41(10)：1057-1058+1064.
[10]	陈颖，林琼，顾岚，等. 无痛结肠镜在儿童下消化道疾病中的诊治体会[J]. 中国医药指南，2018，16(23)：47-48.
[11]	Zhang Z, Wu Y, Sun G, et al. Bayesian network meta-analysis: Efficacy of air insufflation，CO₂ insufflation，water exchange，and water immersion in colonoscopy[J]. Dig Endosc，2018，30(3)：321-331.
[12]	Cadoni S, Ishaq S. How to perform water-aided colonoscopy，with differences between water immersion and water exchange: A teaching video demonstration[J]. Video GIE，2018，3(5)：169-170.
[13]	张慧超，杨幼林，牛思佳，等. 肠镜用水温度对注水法肠镜影响的临床分析[J/CD]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志，2019，8(5)：486-490.
[14]	蒋远健，李红灵，刘杰民，等. 左半结肠注水在结肠镜检查中的应用[J]. 贵州医药，2016，40(1)：85-86.
[15]	江泳，周磊，张群超，等. 透明帽辅助结肠镜检查的临床研究[J]. 河北医学，2017，23(10)：1702-1705.

组别	例数	性别(男/女)	年龄(月)	身高(cm)	体重(kg)	肠道准备[n(%)]
组别	例数	性别(男/女)	年龄(月)	身高(cm)	体重(kg)	理想	尚可	稍差
观察组	71	19/16	39.37±18.19	100.19±16.29	15.41±5.36	21(60)	10(28)	4(11)
对照组	71	18/18	45.06±15.49	104.61±12.94	16.58±4.51	22(61)	10(29)	4(11)
P值		0.718	0.160	0.212	0.326	0.995

组别	例数	性别(男/女)	年龄(月)	身高(cm)	体重(kg)	肠道准备[n(%)]
组别	例数	性别(男/女)	年龄(月)	身高(cm)	体重(kg)	理想	尚可	稍差
观察组	71	19/16	39.37±18.19	100.19±16.29	15.41±5.36	21(60)	10(28)	4(11)
对照组	71	18/18	45.06±15.49	104.61±12.94	16.58±4.51	22(61)	10(29)	4(11)
P值		0.718	0.160	0.212	0.326	0.995

组别	例数	达盲率(%)	达盲时间(min，±s)	达盲时丙泊酚用量(mg，±s)
观察组	35	35/35(100)	8.66±4.20	64.00±18.50
对照组	36	34/36(94)	16.69±9.22	83.33±25.72
χ²/t值		2.001	-4.705	-3.627
P值		0.157	<0.010	0.010

组别	例数	达盲率(%)	达盲时间(min，±s)	达盲时丙泊酚用量(mg，±s)
观察组	35	35/35(100)	8.66±4.20	64.00±18.50
对照组	36	34/36(94)	16.69±9.22	83.33±25.72
χ²/t值		2.001	-4.705	-3.627
P值		0.157	<0.010	0.010

基本情况	性别	年龄	身高	体重	肠道准备
相关系数	0.169	-0.015	-0.28	0.069	0.714
P值	0.331	0.932	0.874	0.693	0.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export