Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 1511 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 311-316

Water exchange versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Piao-Piao Jin
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The First Afliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_118_18

Rights and Permissions

Background/Aims: To compare water exchange (WE) method with conventional air insufflation (AI) method for colonoscopy, evaluating the technical quality, screening efficacy, and patients' acceptance. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing WE colonoscopy with AI colonoscopy. The pooled data of procedure-associated and patient-related outcomes were assessed, using the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables, respectively. Results: A total of 13 studies involving 7056 patients were included. The cecum intubation rate was similar between WE and AI methods (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99–1.02,P = 0.37); however, a significantly longer cecum intubation time was shown in WE group (WMD = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.75–2.37,P = 0.002). Compared with AI, WE was associated with a higher risk of adenoma detection rate (ADR) (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18–1.38,P < 0.00001) and polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.21–1.39,P < 0.00001). Patients in WE group experienced significantly less maximum pain score (WMD = −1.99, 95% CI = −2.68 to −1.30,P < 0.00001) and less requested on-demand sedation (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44–0.77,P = 0.0002). Likewise, they also experienced less abdominal compression (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51-0.74,P < 0.00001) and reposition (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.86,P = 0.0001). Moreover, patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WE (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07–1.21,P < 0.0001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirmed that WE method could significantly increase ADR/PDR and improve patients' acceptance of colonoscopy, while reducing the degree of pain and minimize the need for on-demand sedation and adjunct maneuvers, despite requiring more cecal intubation time.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded477    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal