Full‐spectrum <i>versus</i> standard colonoscopy for improving polyp detection rate: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Facciorusso, Antonio; Prete, Valentina Del; Buccino, Vincenzo Rosario; Valle, Nicola Della; Nacchiero, Maurizio Cosimo; Muscatiello, Nicola

doi:10.1111/jgh.13859

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence around electronic highlighting of flat lesions are still lacking[ 33 ]. The use of full-spectrum colonoscopy, with a panoramic 330 degree view of the colon, has not been shown to be superior to standard colonoscopy with regards to ADR through a meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials[ 34 ]. Despite this, narrow band imaging has been demonstrated to be effective in endoscopic predictions of histology, reducing costs and avoiding risks associated with polypectomy[ 29 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

Lee

Lojanapiwat

Balakrishnan

et al. 2018

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.METHODSA total of 300 colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital were retrospectively reviewed from May 2016 to June 2017. Exclusion criteria were: Patients ≤ 50 years old, colonoscopies with failure of caecal intubation, patients who previously had colon cancer and/or a colonic resection, history of polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Patient demographics, indications, symptoms and procedural-related outcomes were measured.RESULTSThe ADR was not significantly different between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (34% vs 34.67%; P = 0.90). The adjusted odds ratio correcting for gender, age, 1st degree relative with colorectal cancer, previous colonoscopy, trainee involvement and caecal or terminal ileum intubation rate was 1.19 (0.69-2.05).CONCLUSIONBoth specialties at our institution exceed benchmark standards suggested by published Australian and American guidelines. An association between endoscopist specialty and ADR was not observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

Lee

Lojanapiwat

Balakrishnan

et al. 2018

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…29 No 3: 415-420 newer costly scopes over high-definition (HD)-colonoscopy was not observed [9]. Considering individual devices, while full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) showed discording results [10,11], endoscopic add-on devices aimed at improving visualization behind folds were proved to be effective both in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR) based on tandem randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) [12,13]. In particular, our group has recently demonstrated the improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, particularly with endocuff (Endocuff®, Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and in low-performing endoscopists, without clear benefit of one device over another [12].…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Endocuff-assisted versus Cap-assisted Colonoscopy in Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate. A Meta-analysis

Facciorusso

Buccino

Sacco

2020

JGLD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection. We aimed to compare the endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with cap-assisted colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials. Methods: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2020 and identified 6 randomized controlled trials (comprising 2,027 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate and time to reach cecum. Safety data were also analyzed. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results: Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 48.1% (39.3-56.8%) with endocuff and 40.5% (30.4- 50.6%; risk ratio 1.14, 0.96-1.35) with cap. Proximal adenoma detection rate was 45.7% (36.8-54.7%) and 24% (17-45.1%) with endocuff and cap, respectively (risk ratio 2.04, 0.93-4.49), whereas endocuff outperformed cap-assisted colonoscopy in detecting diminutive (≤ 5 mm) adenomas (risk ratio 2.74, 1.53-4.90) and in terms of mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.31, 0.05 -0.57; p=0.02). Sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (risk ratio 1.36, 0.72-2.59), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 0.99, 0.98-1.00), and time to reach cecum (6.87 min versus 6.87 min) were similar between the two groups. No serious adverse event was observed. Conclusion: Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to provide a higher adenoma detection rate as compared to cap-assisted colonoscopy, in particular concerning smaller diminutive polyps.

show abstract

“…It was found that even though the adenoma and polyp detection rates were not significantly different between the groups, the PVC group had a significantly lower adenoma miss rate (risk ratio 0.35, 0.25–0.48, p < 0.01). What is also interesting in this meta-analysis is that it shows that there was no difference in cecal intubation time between the groups and, most interestingly, the total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter in the PVC group (mean difference: –2.60, 95% CI: –4.60, –0.61; p = 0.01) [ 21 ]. This is somewhat contradictory to many single studies, including our study, which showed prolonged CIT and total colonoscopy time in the PVC group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Panoramic colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening - a randomized controlled trial.

Bogacki

Gach

Krzak

et al. 2021

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. Panoramic colonoscopy offers better visualization to decrease the adenoma miss rate. Aim: To assess the influence of 330° panoramic view colonoscopy on adenoma and polyp detection rate, cecal intubation time, and examiner's comfort. Material and methods: The study enrolled 421 patients aged 18-80 years who were eligible for colonoscopy screening. Patients with prior abdominal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease or after colorectal resections were excluded from the study. Patients were randomized to either standard frontal view (SFV) (Olympus Evis Exera III 190 CF-HQ190L) or the panoramic view colonoscopy (PVC) (FUSE CDVL slim c38). The study was approved by the local bioethics committee and registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT02929381). Results: There were 214 patients examined with SFV and 207 with PVC. The mean age of patients was 64 ±12.26 years. The two groups were comparable. The median cecal intubation time was 234 s with SFV vs. 311 s with PVC (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in CIR or withdrawal time. PVC made it possible to discover more diverticula in the ascending colon (p = 0.009). PDR with SFV was 34.6% and 40.1% with PVC (p = 0.242). A higher number of polyps was found in the transverse colon in the PVC group (p = 0.006). ADR and advanced ADR (aADR) in both groups were similar (26.4% vs. 27.1% and 14, 2% vs. 13.9%). Conclusions: Colonoscopy with wide-angle endoscopes lasts longer and allows for the detection of more polyps and diverticula without affecting ADR and aADR. Our study did not reveal the superiority of wide-angle colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening

show abstract

Full‐spectrum versus standard colonoscopy for improving polyp detection rate: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: Full-spectrum endoscopy appears as a promising and reliable technology able to significantly decrease the number of adenomas missed and procedural times, while its superiority over standard colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate results is still unclear.

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

Is there a difference in adenoma detection rates between gastroenterologists and surgeons?

Endocuff-assisted versus Cap-assisted Colonoscopy in Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate. A Meta-analysis

Panoramic colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening - a randomized controlled trial.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About