Screening colonoscopy: What is the most reliable modality for the detection and characterization of colorectal lesions?

Matsuda, Takahisa; Kawano, Hiroshi; Chiu, Han–Mo

doi:10.1111/den.12451

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, flat lesions were identified more frequently in the endocuff group than in the conventional group. This is significant because of the difficulty in identifying this type of lesion with conventional white light [26]. Recently, the Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design Ltd) has become available in some countries (not in Mexico).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different techniques have been introduced to improve the endoscopist's view and enhance the detection of polyps. The endocuff is a polymer sleeve cap that is connected to the tip of the colonoscope in order to improve visualization of the mucosa during colonoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare adenoma detection rates (ADR) of endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patients 50 years or older were randomized into two groups: an endocuff-assisted colonoscopy group and a conventional colonoscopy group without the endocuff. A total of 337 patients were included: 174 in the endocuff group and 163 in the conventional group. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 55 - 70 years), and 74 % were women. The ADR was higher in the endocuff group than in the conventional group (22.4 % vs. 13.5 %; = 0.02). The mean number of adenomas was 0.30 (SD 0.25) in the endocuff group and 0.21 (SD 0.26) in the conventional group ( = 0.02). The rate of ileal intubation was lower in the endocuff group (73 % vs. 87 %; < 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred with the use of the endocuff. Endocuff colonoscopy achieved a greater ADR than conventional colonoscopy.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC02387593).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 5 , 6 Colonoscopy is not only a screening tool but is also required for the treatment and surveillance of colorectal lesions. 9 It has been reported that the use of colonoscopy for removing adenomatous polyps can reduce mortality by up to 53%. 10 Besides its use for primary screening, colonoscopy is also used to verify the outcomes of other screening techniques such as the fecal occult blood test.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Gao¹,

Lin²

2023

Turk J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study evaluates the effect of bowel preparation to colonoscopy time interval on quality of bowel preparation and outcomes of colonoscopy. Methods: Studies were identified after a literature search in electronic databases and were selected for inclusion based on precise eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed to achieve overall bowel preparation adequacy and adenoma/polyp detection rates. Odds ratios depicting associations between bowel preparation quality and bowel preparation to colonoscopy time were pooled to achieve an overall estimate. Results: Twenty studies (10 341 individuals subjected to colonoscopy) were included. Bowel preparation adequacy rate was higher with shorter (94% [95% CI: 91, 97]) than with longer (84% [95% CI: 79, 89]) interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy. In a subgroup analysis, <5, 6-10, 11-20, and >20 hours intervals were associated with 94% [95% CI: 92, 97], 92% [95% CI: 86, 96], 85% [95% CI: 77, 91], and 85% [95% CI: 75, 92] adequacy rates, respectively. A pooled analysis of odds ratios also showed that bowel preparations adequacy was significantly better with shorter bowel preparation to colonoscopy time (odds ratio 1.69 [95% CI: 1.23, 2.15]). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate between shorter (18% [95% CI: 9, 29]) and longer (19% [95% CI: 15, 22]) bowel preparation to colonoscopy intervals. Polyp detection rate was higher with shorter (47% [95% CI: 27, 68]) than with longer (30% [95% CI: 24, 38]) bowel preparation to colonoscopy interval. Conclusion: A shorter interval between bowel preparation and colonoscopy led to a higher bowel preparation adequacy rate which was also associated with a higher polyp detection rate.

show abstract

“…Colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps reduces mortality from colorectal cancer by up to 60%, and the risk of colorectal cancer within 10 years of colonoscopic polypectomy has been reported to be reduced to that of the general population [ 4 , 5 ]. However, according a previous study, up to a fifth of lesions may be missed on colonoscopy screening [ 6 ]. The missed lesions have the potential to develop into CRC [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study

Shi

Liao

et al. 2023

BMC Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Colonoscopy is the standard and most effective screening tool for colonic diseases and the accuracy of colonoscopy depends on the quality of bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Methods In this retrospective study, patients who underwent colonoscopy in 2018 and received 3 L of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes powder were included. They were instructed to drink 1.5 L the night before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L 4–6 h before the procedure given in doses of 250 ml every 10 min with 30 ml of simethicone given 4–6 h before the colonoscopy. Patient- and procedure-related parameters were recorded. An adequate bowel preparation was defined as all 3 segments rated 2 or 3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation scale. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 6720 patients were included in the present study. The mean age of these patients was 49.7 ± 13.0 years old. Inadequate bowel preparation was found in 233 (12.4%), 139 (6.4%), 131 (7%), 68 (8.6%) patients in spring, summer, autumn and winter respectively. On the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.295; 95% CI: 1.088–1.542; P = 0.005), inpatient status (OR: 1.377; 95% CI: 1.040–1.822; P = 0.025) and season (spring vs. winter, OR: 1.514; 95% CI: 1.139–2.012; P = 0.004) were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. Conclusions Male gender, inpatient status and spring season were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. For patients with risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation, enhanced bowel preparation and instructions may help to optimize the quality of bowel preparation.

show abstract

Screening colonoscopy: What is the most reliable modality for the detection and characterization of colorectal lesions?

Cited by 12 publications

References 53 publications

Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial

Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial

Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About