Carbon Dioxide Versus Air Insufflation for Elective Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Memon MA 1 , Memon B , Yunus RM , Khan S

Affiliations 

  • 1 *South East Queensland Surgery (SEQS) and Sunnybank Obesity Centre, McCullough Centre, Sunnybank †Mayne Medical School, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane ‡Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast ∥School of Agricultural, Computing and Environmental Sciences, International Centre for Applied Climate Sciences and Centre for Health Sciences Research, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld, Australia §Faculty of Health and Social Science, Bolton University, Bolton, Lancashire, UK ¶Institute of Mathematical Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2016 Apr;26(2):102-16.
PMID: 26841319 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000243

Abstract

The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of colonic insufflation for elective colonoscopy, that is, carbon dioxide (CO2) or air, and to evaluate their efficiency, safety, and side effects.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications