Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

27 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison of left versus right lateral starting position on colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Modifying patient position during colonoscopy has been proposed as a simple and inexpensive technique to increase luminal distention and improve navigation through the large bowel. The left lateral (LL) decubitus starting position is commonly used during colonoscopy. However, reports indicate that other starting positions may offer additional benefit. We aimed to determine if the right lateral (RL) starting position compared to the standard LL starting position could improve outcomes in colonoscopy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE through June 2020 to identify studies comparing RL and LL starting positions during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes included mean cecal insertion time and cecal intubation rate, and adverse events were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR), mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

We identified 5 randomized controlled trials, including 809 participants, that compared LL vs. RL colonoscopy. The pooled OR for cecal intubation rate was 1.3 (95%CI 0.8-2.3; P=0.3). The mean difference in mean cecal insertion time was 0.08 (95%CI -0.09 to 0.26; P=0.4). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I ²=0%). No complications were reported in either arm of the study. Pain scores assessed using a visual analog scale were comparable among both arms of the study.

Conclusion

The RL starting position for colonoscopy was comparable to the LL and offered no additional benefit in terms of cecal intubation time, intubation rate, or patient discomfort.

SUBMITTER: Ramai D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375655 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

The Effectiveness of Right- vs Left-lateral Starting Position in Unsedated Diagnostic Colonoscopy with Modified-water Immersion Method: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study.

Project description:ObjectiveA colonoscopy study in sedated patients with air insufflation showed that right-lateral starting position (RLP) improved abdominal discomfort and reduced cecal intubation time. The aim of this study was to determine if RLP vs left-lateral starting position (LLP) may produce similar results in unsedated patients examined with a modified-water immersion (m-WI) method.MethodsConsecutive patients for diagnostic colonoscopy meeting the inclusion criteria were randomized. Patients and colonoscopist were unblinded. The m-WI method entailed suction during insertion not only for fecal debris evacuation but also to facilitate passage through difficult or angulated colonic flexures. Water was infused as needed when any difficulty was encountered during insertion. A bowel visualization scale (BVS) (0=totally blurred visualization; 1=blurred lumen visualization; 2=small fecal debris with clear mucosa visualization; 3= clear visualization) was used to evaluate the interference of fecal debris with cecal intubation rate and time.ResultsA total of 142 patients (72 in RLP and 70 in LLP) were enrolled. The respective pain score, visual analog scale, (VAS) and cecal intubation rate were not significantly different. The cecal intubation time was nearly significantly different (13.4±4.5 min vs 11.7±5.4 min; p=0.054) and was significantly different in the constipation subgroup (16.0±3.5 min vs 8.6±3.8 min; p=0.001). The cecal intubation time based on BVS showed significant difference between RLP and LLP in Scale 2 (13.9±4.6 min vs 10.3±4.2 min; p=0.003) and Scale 2 and 3 combined (13.2±4.3 min vs 10.6±4.8 min; p=0.01), respectively.ConclusionRLP did not improve the pain score, and LLP showed better performance in unsedated m-WI colonoscopy patients (ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03489824).

| S-EPMC7522421 | biostudies-literature

Different position from traditional left lateral for colonoscopy? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized control trials.

Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy 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.MethodsMedline, 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionsAmidst 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.

| S-EPMC8110879 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description: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; I 2 = 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.

| S-EPMC7297618 | biostudies-literature

Does ERCP position matter? A randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and complications of left lateral versus prone position (POSITION study).

Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is traditionally performed with patients in the prone position (PP). However, this poses a potentially increased risk of anesthetic complications. An alternative is the left lateral (LL) decubitus position, which is commonly used for endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to compare cannulation rate, time, and outcomes in ERCP performed in LL versus PP. Patients and methods We conducted a non-inferiority, prospective, randomized control trial with 1:1 randomization to either LL or PP position. Patients > 18 years of age with native papillae requiring a therapeutic ERCP were recruited between March 2017 and November 2018 in a single tertiary center. Results A total of 253 patients were randomized; 132 to LL (52.2 %) and 121 to PP (47.8 %). Cannulation rates were 97.0 % in LL vs 99.2 % in PP (difference -2.2 % (one-sided 95 % CI: -5 % to 0.6 %). Median time to biliary cannulation was 03:50 minutes in LL vs 02:57 minutes in PP ( P = 0.62). Pancreatitis rates were 2.3 % in LL vs 5.8 % in PP ( P = 0.20). There were significantly lower radiation doses used in PP (0.23 mGy/m 2 in LL vs 0.16 mGy/m 2 in PP, P = 0.008) without a difference in fluoroscopy times. Conclusions Our analysis comparing LL to PP during ERCP shows comparable procedural and anesthetic outcomes, with significantly lower radiation exposure when performed in PP. We conclude that ERCP undertaken in the LL position is not inferior to PP, except for higher radiation exposure, and should be considered as a safe alternate position for patients undergoing ERCP.

| S-EPMC9010096 | biostudies-literature

Real-time computer aided colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundRecent prospective randomized controlled trials have evaluated deep convolutional neural network (CNN) based computer aided detection (CADe) of lesions in real-time colonoscopy. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to standard colonoscopy (SC) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsMultiple databases were searched (from inception to May 2020) and parallel RCTs that compared deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to SC were included for this analysis. Using Mantel-Haenzel (M-H) random effects model, pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated. In between study heterogeneity was assessed by I2% values. Outcomes assessed included other per patient adenoma parameters.FindingsSix RCTs were included in our final analysis that utilized deep CNN based CADe system in real-time colonoscopy. Total numbers of patients assessed were 4962 (2480 in CADe and 2482 in SC group). CADe based colonoscopy demonstrated statistically higher pooled ADR, RR=1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.72), p<0.0001, I2=56%; and pooled PDR, RR=1.42 (95% CI 1.33-1.51), p<0.00001, I2=9%; when compared to SC. Per patient adenoma detection parameters were significantly better with CADe colonoscopy when compared to SC, with increased scope withdrawal time (mean difference = 0.38, 95% CI 0.05-0.72, p = 0.02).InterpretationBased on our meta-analysis, deep CNN based CADe colonoscopy achieved significantly higher ADR metrics, albeit with increased scope withdrawal time when compared to SC.

| S-EPMC7691740 | biostudies-literature

Dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor: comparison of performance in supine vs left lateral body position.

Project description:Objective:To investigate the performance of MR-defecography (MRD) in lateral body position as an alternative to supine position.Methods:22 consecutive patients (16 females; mean age 51 ± 19.4) with obstructed defecation and 20 healthy volunteers (11 females; mean age 33.4 ± 11.5) underwent MRD in a closed-configuration 3T-MRI in supine and lateral position. MRD included T2 weighted images at rest and during defecation after filling the rectum with 250 ml water-based gel. Measurements were performed in reference to the pubococcygeal line and grade of evacuation was assessed. Image quality (IQ) was rated on a 5-point-scale (5 = excellent).Results:In patients grades of middle and posterior compartment descent were similar in both body positions (p > 0.05). Grades of anterior compartment descent were significantly higher in lateral position (21/22 vs 17/22 patients with normal or small descent, p < 0.034). In volunteers grades of descent were similar for all compartments in supine and lateral position (p > 0.05). When attempting to defecate in supine position 6/22 (27%) patients showed no evacuation, while in lateral position only 3/22 (14%) were not able to evacuate. IQ in patients was equal at rest (4.4 ± 0.5 and 4.7 ± 0.6, p > 0.05) and slightly better in supine compared to the lateral position during defecation (4.5 ± 0.4 vs 3.9 ± 0.9, p < 0.017). IQ in volunteers was equal in supine and lateral position (p > 0.05).Conclusion:In lateral position, more patients were able to evacuate with similar grades of pelvic floor descent compared to supine position. MRD in lateral position may be a valuable alternative for patients unable to defecate in supine position.Advances in knowledge:In lateral position, more patients were able to evacuate during MRD. MRD in lateral position may be an alternative for patients unable to defecate in supine position.

| S-EPMC6319839 | biostudies-literature

Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

Project description:Great value in the early identification and treatment of adenomatous polyps or early canceration using colonoscopy has been recognized. A clear colonoscopic vision brought by good intestinal preparation will become crucial. Several studies have completed using the low-residue diet (LRD) versus a clear liquid diet (CLD) the day before colonoscopy that presenting contradictory results. Therefore, a more comprehensive and updated meta-analysis is needed to summarize the findings on the effects of LRD and CLD on intestinal preparation and the quality of coloscopy.The comprehensive search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane databases (February 2020). LRD vs CLD before colonoscopy were included in this study. Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the relative risk (RR) to evaluate differences in intestinal preparation, tolerance, readiness to repeat preparation, detected of a polyp, and overall adverse reactions.Total 16 studies (N = 3413) were eligible. Patients with LRD compared with CLD indicated significantly better of tolerability (RR 0.92;95% CI,0.85-0.99; P < .05) and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.93; P < .05), but no differences with adequate intestinal preparations, detected polyp or overall adverse reactions (all P > .05).Patients with LRD the day before colonoscopy show better tolerance and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation, and no difference with adequate intestinal preparations compared with CLD, but the recommended level of evidence is weak. However, in terms of the detection rate of intestinal adenomas, the LRD group is not weaker than the CLD group, for its evidence level is high, and can significantly reduce the hunger experience of patients.

| S-EPMC7717789 | biostudies-literature

Right versus left thoracic approach oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Project description:IntroductionOesophageal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumours and has been identified as one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Surgery is considered to be the optimal treatment for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can significantly extend the survival period of patients and provide a potential opportunity for a cure. However, there is still controversy regarding which thoracic approach (right or left) during oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer can lead to better surgical outcomes globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed to determine which thoracic approach during oesophagectomy will achieve longer patient survival and will be more beneficial for patients.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cancerlit, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases for relevant clinical trials published in any language before 1 October 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, propensity score-matched comparative studies and prospective cohort studies of interest, published or unpublished, that meet the inclusion criteria will be included. Subgroup analysis of the type of operation, tumour pathological stage and ethnicity will be performed.Prospero registration numberCRD42019124133.Ethics and disseminationBecause this study will be based on published or unpublished records and studies, there is no need for ethics approval. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

| S-EPMC6629400 | biostudies-literature

Single cell RNA-seq comparison of cardiac fibroblasts from the left versus right ventricles

Project description:Cardiac fibrosis is a key aspect of heart failure, leading to reduced ventricular compliance and impaired electrical conduction in the myocardium. Various pathophysiologic conditions can lead to fibrosis in the left ventricle (LV) and/or right ventricle (RV). Despite growing evidence to support the transcriptomic heterogeneity of cardiac fibroblasts (CFs) in healthy and diseased states, there have been no direct comparisons of CFs in the LV and RV. Given the distinct natures of the ventricles, we hypothesized that LV and RV-derived CFs would display baseline transcriptomic differences that influence their proliferation and differentiation following injury. Bulk RNA sequencing of CFs isolated from healthy left and right cardiac ventricles indicated that left ventricle-derived CFs may be further along the myofibroblast transdifferentiation trajectory than cells isolated from the right ventricle. Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis of the two populations confirmed that Postn+ CFs are more enriched in the LV, whereas Igfbp3+ CFs were enriched in the RV at baseline. Notably, following pressure overload injury, the LV developed a larger subpopulation of pro-fibrotic Thbs4+/Cthrc1+ injury-induced CFs, while the RV showed unique expansion of two less-well characterized subpopulations of CFs (Igfbp3+ and Inmt+). These findings demonstrate that LV and RV-derived CFs display baseline subpopulation differences that may dictate their diverging responses to pressure overload injury. Further study of these subpopulations will elucidate their role in the development of fibrosis and inform whether LV and RV fibrosis require distinct treatments.

2024-02-28 | GSE254914 | GEO

Expression data from left versus right mouse entorhinal cortex (EC).

Project description:The entorhinal cortex of the mouse seems to be sensitive to molecular mechanisms that have been linked to the pathology of Alzheimer's disease. In this microarray study we are interested in comparing the expression profile of the left versus the right EC of the mouse, in order to understand if there is a significant difference in gene expression that might reveal any insights into the differential activation of these areas. We used microarrays to detail the global programme of gene expression underlying a possible lateralization of the EC in the mouse brain (left versus right EC). The left and the right entorhinal cortices of 6 month-old C57BL/6 wild-type mice was dissected out by following anatomical landmarks and guided by the Mouse Brain Paxinos and Franklin’s atlas. Samples were immediately processed for RNA extraction by using the RNeasy Kit from QIAGEN according to manufacturer’s instructions. Before running the microarrays, RNA quality and integrity was monitored on an Agilent BioAnalyzer. Samples were then run on Affymetrix Genechip Mouse gene 2.0 ST arrays following Affymetrix’s standard procedures (n=3 per cortical hemisphere). Microarrays data were analyzed through the use of Ingenuity® iReport (Ingenuity® Systems, www.ingenuity.com).

2013-07-30 | E-GEOD-49311 | biostudies-arrayexpress

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data