GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020

Chua, Tiffany; Baig, Kondal R. Kyanam Kabir; Leung, Felix W.; Ashat, Munish; Jamidar, Priya A.; Mulki, Ramzi; Singh, Ajaypal; Yu, Jessica X.; Lightdale, Jenifer R.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.011

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis supported the hypothesis that the strengths of computer‐aided detection and WE complemented the weaknesses of each other in optimizing polyp detection 11 . The listing of WAC continued in the GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020 12 . The use of on‐demand sedation with WE reduced the insertion pain score, 13 lowered the dose of sedation medication, and shortened the recovery time 13 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…11 The listing of WAC continued in the GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020. 12 The use of on-demand sedation with WE reduced the insertion pain score, 13 lowered the dose of sedation medication, and shortened the recovery time. 13 The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a backlog of screening cases 4 due to measures to minimize exposure and patient hesitancy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the discussion, we will review the most recent WAC reports published after the cutoff date of literature search for the MDCR to add additional insights. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, it is important to explore how WE could benefit screening colonoscopy practice during pandemic recovery. In the discussion, we will review the most recent WAC reports published after the cutoff date of literature search for the MDCR to add additional insights 5–13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A survey of colonoscopists with and without in‐depth knowledge of water‐aided colonoscopy

Leung

Cadoni

Koo

et al. 2022

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE. Methods: A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified. Results: Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time. Conclusions: An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.* Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test.CO 2 , carbon dioxide; WAC, water-aided colonoscopy; WE, water exchange colonoscopy; WI, water immersion colonoscopy.FW Leung et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the discussion, we will review the most recent WAC reports published after the cutoff date of literature search for the MDCR to add additional insights. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A survey of colonoscopists with and without in‐depth knowledge of water‐aided colonoscopy

Leung

Cadoni

Koo

et al. 2022

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the year 2020, GI endoscopy device utilisation capitalisation was as high as US$8.2 billion and expected to rise in the future 22. With increasing procedure volumes, use of advanced techniques24 34 and emphasis on minimally invasive intervention to supplant conventional surgery, the volume of GI endoscopy procedures can be anticipated to increase. Recently, there has been a push for the development of single-use disposable endoscopes which can potentially eliminate the risk of infection transmission in patients 35.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production and possible reduction of greenhouse gases produced during GI endoscopy activity: a systematic review of available literature

Perisetti

Desai

Bourke

et al. 2022

Gut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsGreenhouse gases (GHGs) that trap heat in the atmosphere are composed of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases (synthetic hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen trifluoride). In the USA, the health sector accounts for 8.5% of total GHG emissions. The primary objective of this systematic review was to critically analyse the carbon emissions data from GI endoscopic activity.DesignThe GI endoscopy carbon cycle was evaluated at preprocedural, intraprocedural and postprocedural levels. We performed a systematic literature search of articles published on these issues until 30 June 2022 and discussed these available data on endoscopy unit GHG carbon cycle, barriers to reduce GHG emissions and potential solutions. The inclusion criteria were any full-text articles (observational, clinical trials, brief communications, case series and editorials) reporting waste generation from GI endoscopy. Abstracts, news articles and conference proceedings were excluded.ResultsOur search yielded 393 records in PubMed, 1708 in Embase and 24 in Google Scholar. After application of inclusion and exclusion factors, we focused on 9 fulllength articles in detail, only 3 of them were cross-sectional studies (all from the USA), the others reviews or position statements. Therefore, the quality of the studies could not be assessed due to heterogeneity in definitions and amount of emissions.ConclusionsRecognition of carbon emissions generated by GI endoscopy activity is critical. Although multiple limitations exists for quantification of these emission, there is an urgent need for collecting proper data as well as examining novel methods for reduction of these emissions for a sustainable endoscopic practices in the future.

show abstract