A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of application value between conventional air insufflation and water infusion in colonoscopy. | LitMetric

Objective: To discuss the feasibility of water infusion colonoscopy and its difference with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy in application value.

Methods: A prospective randomized controlled clinical study was designed to include 200 patients who underwent sedation-free diagnostic colonoscopy. Among them, 100 patients were treated with water infusion colonoscopy (observation group) and 100 patients were treated with air insufflation colonoscopy (control group). All operations were performed independently by the same experienced physician. The differences in colonoscopy related values, colon adenoma detection rate, and follow-up findings between the patients of two groups were compared.

Results: There was no significant difference in the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score of the left hemicolon, transverse colon, right hemicolon, total BBPS scores, and bubble amount between the two groups (P>0.05). In the observation group, the scope-forward time, the time to reach the ileocecal junction, and the total operation time were significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.01). The proportion of patients in whom the ileocecal junction was successfully reached was significantly higher in the observation group. The intraoperative abdominal pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, abdominal distension VAS score, the proportion of postural change, and the proportion of abdominal compression were all significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the endoscope hardness adjustment rate, the scope withdrawal time, total detection rate of adenomas, and the size or location of colon adenomatous lesions between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with control group, the incidence of abdominal pain and VAS scores were significantly lower in the observation group (P<0.05), and the willingness of patients to perform colonoscopy again was significantly higher (P<0.01).

Conclusion: Patients' tolerance and examination satisfaction are significantly better when using water infusion colonoscopy compared with traditional air insufflation colonoscopy, but the operation times are longer.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539865PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

air insufflation
12
water infusion
12
infusion colonoscopy
12
insufflation colonoscopy
8
100 patients
8
patients treated
8
observation group
8
control group
8
colonoscopy
7
comparison application
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!