RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and most CRCs develop from polyps with malignant potential. We aimed to study the difference in polyp detection rate between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopies (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted at Cairo University Hospitals on patients referred for screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from July 2018 to August 2020. All included patients underwent back-to-back standard colonoscopy (SC) and ENDOCUFF VISION-assisted colonoscopies (EAC). RESULTS: 214 patients were included in this study. In comparison between EAC and SC, EAC increased the polyp detection rate (69 (32.24 %) vs. 57(26.64 %) (p < 0.05), EAC increased the detection of diminutive polyps ≤ 5 mm (104 vs. 81) (p < 0.05), and small polyps 6-9 mm (12 vs. 10) while there was no difference in large polyps ≥ 10 mm. EAC increased the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (37 (17.2 %) vs. 32(14.9 %) (p < 0.05). The findings detected by EAC shortened the interval of surveillance determined by SC findings. EndoCuff caused six mucosal erosions (2.8 %) in patients. CONCLUSION: EAC increases the number of detected colonic polyps, primarily small polyps on the left and right sides of the colon.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff VisionTM has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at ten hospitals and randomized into four groups: Group 1; 2xCC, Group 2; CC followed by EVC, Group 3; EVC followed CC and Group 4; 2xEVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients were randomized of which 661 patients (92.2%) had one and 646 (90.1%) patients had two completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1% [95%-CI;36.1-46.3] versus 35.5% [95%-CI;30.7-40.6], respectively, P=0.125), but EVC did reduced AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95%-CI;23.6-36.5] versus 17.9% [95%-CI;12.5-23.5], respectively, P=0.049). AMR of 2xCC compared to 2xEVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95%-CI;19.3-33.9] versus 18.8% [95%-CI;13.9-24.8], respectively, P=0.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P=0.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.008) and region where colonoscopy was performed (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significant improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03418948.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) helps reduce the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging (TXI) improves ADR by enhancing the brightness and contrast of endoscopic images. Endocuff Vision (ECV) is a mucosal exposure device that helps flatten the colonic folds. The benefit of combining TXI with ECV has not been studied previously. Thus, we aimed to compare the ADR between using TXI combined with ECV and TXI alone. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial recruiting patients aged ≥ 40 years who underwent colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening or gastrointestinal symptoms. The participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into the TXI with ECV (TXI + ECV) and the TXI groups. Experienced endoscopists with ≥ 40% ADR performed all colonoscopies. The primary outcome was ADR. RESULTS: We had 189 and 192 patients in the TXI + ECV and TXI groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. The ADR was significantly higher in the TXI + ECV group than in the TXI group (65.6% vs. 52.1%, P = 0.007). Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) was significantly greater in the TXI + ECV group than in the TXI group (1.6 vs. 1.2, P = 0.021), prominently proximal (1.0 vs. 0.7, P = 0.031), non-pedunculated (1.4 vs. 1.1, P = 0.035), and diminutive (1.3 vs. 1, P = 0.045) adenomas. Serrated lesion detection rate, insertion time, and withdrawal time did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Adding ECV to TXI significantly improves ADR and APC compared to using TXI alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20220507004.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. RESULTS: Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64-2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29-2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of the adenoma detection rate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of June 8, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the relative risk with a 95% CI, whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 23 RCTs involving 17,999 patients were included. Compared with standard colonoscopy, use of the Endocuff was associated with a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24), polyp detection rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.43), left-side lesion detection rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), and mean number of adenomas per patient (MD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.26). There were no significant differences between the and groups in detection of advanced adenomas, mean number of polyps per patient, right-side lesion detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence suggests a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate using the Endocuff. On the other hand, no significant effect on the detection of advanced adenomas and mean number of polyps per patient was noted.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Gastrointestinal angiodysplasias (GIADs) are the most common causes for suspected small bowel bleeding. Fifty percent of GIADs do not need treatment due to bleeding cessation, while 45% have high re-bleeding rates, that significantly impact patient outcome and health resource utilization. We suspected that this high re-bleeding rate occurs because not all lesions are detected with present standard of care. This study evaluates whether device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) utilizing the Endocuff (EC) device could improve GIAD detection. A retrospective chart review of a prospective data collection was performed from January 2006 to December 2018 at VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (VALLHCS) on both inpatients and outpatients referred for active and chronic suspected small bowel bleeding. The patients were initially monitored for bleeding lesions via video capsule endoscopy (VCE) after negative upper and lower endoscopy. GIADs observed between 0% to 40% small bowel transit time (SBTT) were referred for push enteroscopy (PE) with and without (±) the EC device. Twenty-five consecutive patients underwent PE ± EC. No patient had VCE done after PE ± EC. Using PE-EC, GIADs were detected in 9 of 25 (36%) of patients. Importantly, PE+EC detected GIADs in 23 of 25 (92%) patients. The sum of GIADs detected without EC was 26 ± 0.06 vs. 112 ± 0.2 using EC. The average detection rate for PE without EC was significantly lower (1.04 ± 0.06, mean ± SE) as compared to PE with EC (4.48 ± 0.23, mean ± SE, p<0.0005). Additionally, a positive correlation (r=0.51) between capsule enteroscopy (CE) location of GIADs and SBTT was found. The EC device increases the detection of GIADs in the proximal small bowel. We also reconfirm that the location of bleeding GIADs are within the reach of the push enteroscope (PE). Finally, PE + EC may also reduce GIAD miss rates, which may play a role in the reduction of re-bleeding episodes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important measure of quality in colonoscopy, but little is known about the detection rate of serrated lesions (SLDR). To improve ADR, Endocuff Vision (EV) can be used. Studies have shown differing results as to the effect on ADR; an effect on SLDR has not been shown. To investigate the effect of Endocuff Vision on ADR in a screening population, this randomized controlled open label trial with concealed allocation was performed. Randomization to trial group was carried out by the endoscopist using prepared numbered envelopes. METHODS: Patients referred as part of the national bowel screening program at Regional Hospital Herning, Denmark were recruited and allocated to one of two groups: Endocuff Vision colonoscopy (EVC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Outcomes were ADR, mean number, site, and size of lesions per procedure. SLDR as outcome was added after inclusion had begun. RESULTS: A total of 1178 participants were included, with 1166 (EVC 583 and SC 583) available for analysis. There was no clinical relevant difference in ADR (59.2% [CI 55.1; 63.1] v 60.5% [CI 56.5; 64.4]) or SLDR (13.0% [CI 10.5; 16.0] v 10.3% [CI 8.0; 13.0]) between groups. More serrated lesions were found per procedure (MSP) (0.2 v 0.1, IRR 57% [CI 17; 109]. Removal rate of EV was similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSION: We found no significant effects of the use of Endocuff Vision on ADR, when compared to standard colonoscopy, but more serrated lesions were detected in the Endocuff group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT04651062.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Standard colonoscopy fails to visualize the entire colon mucosa and consequently a significant amount of polyps are still being missed. New device, such as EndoCuff, have been developed to improve mucosal visualisation, hence the quality in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with standard colonoscopy by taking into consideration several quality indicators. METHODS: In this study, 965 adults ≥ 18 years referred for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups. The main statistical investigation compared the difference between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs. standard colonoscopy (SC) in the detection of colonic polyps and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The second inquiry sought to compare experienced vs. recently trained and female vs. male operators. RESULTS: The ADR was higher for EC than for SC (37.50% vs. 26.64%). Regarding the mean number of detected polyps per procedure (MPP), the result was statistically significant when generally comparing the EC vs. SC (p=0.0009). There were no differences in MPP between EC and SC for recently trained endoscopists (p=0.7446), while a significant difference for experienced doctors (p=0,0020) was noted. A significant difference was observed between female doctors and male doctors only when using SC. EC was more helpful for female doctors when assessing MPP (p=0.0118). No serious adverse events related to EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy was noted. CONCLUSIONS: EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to be safe and may bring benefits for improving the polyp/adenoma detection rates in regard to missed lesions, usually located in blind areas.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Endocuff has been suggested as a safe and useful device facilitating complex endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the sigmoid colon; however, the existing data are sparse. In this case series, we report our experience with endocuff in facilitating EMR in defiant polyps throughout the colon. CASE SERIES: In colonoscopies where sufficient stability and, thus, reliable visualization of the lesion was not possible (defiant polyp), the endoscope was removed, and subsequently, an ENDOCUFF VISIONTM was mounted on its tip. Thereafter, the colonic area of interest underwent endoscopic re-examination. The study prospectively included fifteen patients with 16 sessile/flat polyps. Fifteen of the 16 EMRs were considered successful. CONCLUSIONS: This case series indicates the use of endocuff as an auxiliary device for facilitating EMR in defiant colonic polyps. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (3):134-137.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. CONCLUSION: WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR. METHODS: Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status. RESULTS: A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection. CONCLUSION: The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Add-on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference. RESULTS: Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta-analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0% vs 45.1%; P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of screening colonoscopies performed by trainees is often lower than that of colonoscopies performed by experts. The effcacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in adenoma detection is well documented, especially that of CACs performed by trainees. Endocuff, a new endoscopic cap, is reportedly useful for adenoma detection; however, no trials have compared the effcacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and CAC conducted by trainees. Therefore, the present study retrospectively compared the effcacy between EAC and CAC in trainees. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study involving 305 patients who underwent either EAC or CAC performed by three trainees between January and December 2018. We evaluated the ADR, mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP), cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and occurrence of complications between the EAC and CAC groups. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in the EAC group than in the CAC group (54.3% vs. 37.3%, p=0.019), as was the MAP (1.36 vs. 0.74, p=0.003). No significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the cecal intubation rate or cecal intubation time. No major complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that EAC exhibits increased ADR and MAP compared to CAC when performed by trainees.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection. METHODS: Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time. RESULTS: There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P = .0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P = .14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P < .0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P = .07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P = .21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P = .12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P = .09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION: In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03361917.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) could improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published up to March 2019. All pure randomized controlled trials comparing ADR between EAC and SC groups were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. Review Manager Version 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials consisting of 9038 patients (EAC: 4574; SC: 4464) were included. The EAC group showed significant superiority over the SC group in ADR (odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62). However, there were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time. CONCLUSIONS: EAC could significantly improve ADR without increasing adverse events, especially for operators with low ADRs. In addition, no significant difference was observed in cecal intubation time and cecal intubation rate between EAC and SC.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world and is thought to develop from premalignant polyps. Over the past decade, several behind folds visualizing techniques (BFTs) have become available to improve polyp detection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare BFTs with conventional colonoscopy (CC). RECENT FINDINGS: In the past five years, 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 8384 patients comparing different BFTs with CC were published. The overall relative risks for adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma miss rate comparing BFTs with CC were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10; P = 0.15), 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P = 0.28), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.46-1.05; P = 0.08), respectively. Other quality metrics for colonoscopy were not significantly different between BFT-assisted colonoscopy and CC either. This meta-analysis of RCTs published in the past five years does not show a significant benefit of BFTs on any of the important quality metrics of colonoscopy. The lack of additional effect of BFTs might be due to improved awareness of colonoscopy quality metrics and colonoscopy skills among endoscopists combined with improvements of conventional colonoscope technology.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Transparent hood-assisted colonoscopy (TAC) has been reported to improve the cecal insertion rate and adenoma detection rate (ADR). An endoscopic cap (Endocuff) with two rows of soft wings was recently developed to improve ADR, by flattening the mucosal folds during withdrawal. This randomized prospective control study aimed to compare ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and TAC. METHODS: A total of 513 patients undergoing colon adenoma screening were included. EAC was performed in 256 patients and TAC in 260 patients. Cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, ADR, and mean adenoma number per patient (MAP) were investigated in both groups (clinical trial registration: UMIN000016278). RESULTS: We excluded six patients in the EAC group and two patients in the TAC group because of colonic stenosis due to colonic adenocarcinomas. Finally, 250 patients (151 men/99 women, median age 62.1 years) were assigned to EAC and 258 patients (165 men/93 women, median age 64.3 years) were assigned to TAC. There were no significant differences in cecal intubation rate, intubation time, withdrawal time, and cleanliness score between groups. The ADR was 50.8% in EAC and 52.7% in TAC, with no significant difference (P = 0.666). The MAP was 1.35 in EAC and 1.20 in TAC, with no significant difference (P = 0.126). However, The MAP of diminutive adenomas (< 5 mm) tended to be higher in EAC than in TAC (P = 0.077). There was no significant difference in MAP in each segment between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy might be equivalent to TAC in cecal intubation time, ADR, and MAP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection. AIM: To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC). METHODS: Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated. RESULTS: We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι 2 = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι 2 = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι 2 = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι 2 = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι 2 = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it. CONCLUSION: EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence enabling the detection and removal of adenomas before they turn into colorectal cancer. Colonoscopy has its limitations as adenoma miss rates as high as 25% have been reported. The reasons for missed pathology are complicated and multi-factorial. The recent drive to improve adenoma detection rates has led to a plethora of new technologies. Areas covered: An increasing number of advanced endoscopes and distal attachment devices have appeared in the market. Advanced endoscopes aim to improve mucosal visualization by widening the field of view. Distal attachment devices aim to increase adenoma detection behind folds by flattening folds on withdrawal. In this review article, we discuss the three following distal attachment devices: the transparent cap, the Endocuff, and the Endoring. Expert commentary: The authors believe that the distal attachment devices will have a greater benefit for endoscopists with low baseline adenoma detection rates.

Asunto(s)