Cargando…
Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this stu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Chinese Medical Association
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34013177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2020.09.002 |
_version_ | 1783690383313600512 |
---|---|
author | Lin, Snow Yunni Yaow, Clyve Yu Leon Ng, Cheng Han Wong, Neng Wei Tham, Hui Yu Chong, Choon Seng |
author_facet | Lin, Snow Yunni Yaow, Clyve Yu Leon Ng, Cheng Han Wong, Neng Wei Tham, Hui Yu Chong, Choon Seng |
author_sort | Lin, Snow Yunni |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8110879 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Chinese Medical Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81108792021-05-18 Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials Lin, Snow Yunni Yaow, Clyve Yu Leon Ng, Cheng Han Wong, Neng Wei Tham, Hui Yu Chong, Choon Seng Chronic Dis Transl Med Meta Analysis BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires the intubation of the cecum for screening of colorectal diseases. The conventional position used for colonoscopy is the left lateral position (LLP). However, alternative positions have also been utilized to enhance the success of intubation. Thus, the aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the different positions to determine the effectiveness of the individual positions for successful colonoscopy. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane trials electronic databases were searched for studies on colonoscopy positions. The primary outcome was defined as the cecal intubation rate. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the rates of cecal intubation were estimated. Secondary outcomes such as the cecal intubation time and adenoma detection rate were further analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: After reviewing 644 identified records, 7 randomized control trials (RCT) studies were included. No significant difference was observed in either comparisons, between the LLP vs. supine position (SP) (RR = 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.04, P = 0.55) or the LLP vs. prone position (PP) (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.06, P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Amidst available literature, the use of other positions can be considered when performing colonoscopy. These further highlights that the existential practice is based predominantly on familiarity instead of evidence-based-research. Chinese Medical Association 2020-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8110879/ /pubmed/34013177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2020.09.002 Text en © 2020 Chinese Medical Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Meta Analysis Lin, Snow Yunni Yaow, Clyve Yu Leon Ng, Cheng Han Wong, Neng Wei Tham, Hui Yu Chong, Choon Seng Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title | Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title_full | Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title_fullStr | Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title_short | Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
title_sort | different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials |
topic | Meta Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8110879/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34013177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2020.09.002 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT linsnowyunni differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials AT yaowclyveyuleon differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials AT ngchenghan differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials AT wongnengwei differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials AT thamhuiyu differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials AT chongchoonseng differentpositionfromtraditionalleftlateralforcolonoscopyametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofrandomizedcontroltrials |