Efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background and study aims We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy.

Patients and methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through February 2019 to identify studies reporting the comparison between the right/supine/prone/tilt-down and left lateral starting position during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were mean cecal insertion time and adverse events requiring medication. Two reviewers performed study selection and risk of bias assessment. We determined the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019124360).

Results We identified 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2083 participants), including three trials on right/tilt-down versus left, two trials on supine/prone versus left, respectively. Mean difference in mean cecal insertion time in supine versus left was –41.0 s (95 % confidence interval [CI] –57.3 to –24.7) in one study and in tilt-down versus left was – 37.3 s (95 % CI –72.1 to –2.4; I² = 58 %) in three studies; however, there were no statistically significant differences in prone/right versus left position (very low certainty of evidence). Four of eight studies noted adverse effects requiring medication (moderate certainty of evidence). One RCT applying the tilt-down position was terminated because of increased occurrence of oxygen desaturation.

Conclusion We could not conclusively determine the efficacy and safety of the starting position during colonoscopy because of low certainty of evidence. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of the starting potion during colonoscopy.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. Dezember 2019

Angenommen: 23. März 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. Juni 2020

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 3 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69: 7-34
• 4 Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J. et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 1179-1187
• 5 Kravochuck S, Gao R, Church J. Differences in colonoscopy technique impact quality. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 1588-1593
• 6 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
• 7 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
• 8 Cappell MS, Friedel D. The role of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal disorders: technique, indications, and contraindications. Med Clin North Am 2002; 86: 1217-1252
• 9 Arya V, Singh S, Agarwal S. et al. Position change during colonoscopy improves caecal intubation rate, mucosal visibility, and adenoma detection in patients with suboptimal caecal preparation. Prz Gastroenterol 2017; 12: 296-302
• 10 Lee A, Iskander JM, Gupta N. et al. Queue position in the endoscopic schedule impacts effectiveness of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1457-1465
• 11 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100
• 12 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 13 Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 307-323
• 14 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. 2011 https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org [Accessed 29 September 2019]
• 15 Atkin W, Rogers P, Cardwell C. et al. Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1247-1256
• 16 Vergis N, McGrath AK, Stoddart CH. et al. Right Or Left in COLonoscopy (ROLCOL)? A randomized controlled trial of right- versus left-sided starting position in colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1576-1581
• 17 Gonzalez FM, Bueno N, Casillas GB. et al. Comparison between conventional left lateral position and right lateral position as the starting position in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB179-AB180
• 18 Mocanu I, Laranjo A, Pires S. et al. Colonoscopy on the left, right?. U Eur Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: A461
• 19 Klare P, Huth R, Haller B. et al. Patient position and hypoxemia during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1159-1166
• 20 Zhao S, Yang X, Meng Q. et al. Impact of the supine position versus left horizontal position on colonoscopy insertion: a 2-center, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1193-1201.e1
• 21 Uddin FS, Iqbal R, Harford WV. et al. Prone positioning of obese patients for colonoscopy results in shortened cecal intubation times: a randomized trial. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 782-787
• 22 Vergis N, Scarborough AJ, Morris JA. et al. Prone or left for colonoscopy? A randomized controlled trial of prone versus left-sided starting position for colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52: e82-e86
• 23 Saad AM, Winn J, Chennamaneni V. et al. The value of the Trendelenburg position during routine colonoscopy: a pilot study. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: S229
• 24 Leonard W. Evaluate the safety and diagnostic advantages of tilt down verses standard horizontal colonoscopy positioning (CTDTTIE). 2014 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01815671?view=results [Accessed 29 September 2019]
• 25 Zhao SB, Yang X, Fang J. et al. Effect of left lateral tilt-down position on cecal intubation time: a 2-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 852-861
• 26 Jaruvongvanich V, Sempokuya T, Laoveeravat P. et al. Risk factors associated with longer cecal intubation time: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018; 33: 359-365
• 27 Bannert C, Reinhart K, Dunkler D. et al. Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1837-1848
• 28 Metwally M, Agresti N, Hale WB. et al. Conscious or unconscious: the impact of sedation choice on colon adenoma detection. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17: 3912-3915
• 29 Nakshabendi R, Berry AC, Munoz JC. et al. Choice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies. Ann Gastroenterol 2016; 29: 50-55
• 30 Jung Y, Joo YE, Kim HG. et al. Relationship between the endoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma/polyp detection rate in individual colonic segments: a KASID multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 523-530
• 31 Cooper GS, Kou TD, Rex DK. Complications following colonoscopy with anesthesia assistance: a population-based analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 551-556
• 32 Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F. et al. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (05) CD009863