Dataset Information

Diagnostic value of novel retroflexion colonoscopy in the right colon: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Colonoscopy is the accepted gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer. However, colonoscopy is less effective in preventing colon cancer in the right side compared with the left side.

Aim

To investigate the feasibility of a novel type of retroflexion colonoscope, EC-3490Ti colonoscope, for detection of proximal colon lesions.

Methods

In this prospective trial, we recruited patients who underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. When the endoscopists could not grasp the whole observation of the right-side colon mucosa in the forward view (FV), insertion and withdrawal were repeatedly performed in the FV group with the EC38-i10F colonoscope while retroflexion was performed in the retroflexed view (RV) group with the EC-3490Ti colonoscope. Adenoma detection rate, the total number of adenomas per positive participant, the success rate of retroflexion, and endoscope withdrawal time were recorded and compared.

Results

The total adenoma detection rate (39.3% vs 37.7%, P = 0.646) did not show any significant difference between the two groups. However, the polyp detection rate (59.6% vs 51.0%, P = 0.002), adenoma detection rate in the right colon (21.6% vs 14.4%, P = 0.012), and the total number of adenomas per positive participant (2.1 vs 1.7, P = 0.011) reached statistical significance. Retroflexion was achieved in 91.7% of our cohort. Compared with the FV group, the withdrawal time was significantly prolonged in the RV group (586.1 ± 124.4 s vs 508.8 ± 129.6 s, P < 0.001). In contrast, the proportion of additional ancillary pressure decreased (27.4% vs 45.7%, P < 0.001), and the visual analog scale pain scores did not increase (2.7 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.4, P = 0.377).

Conclusion

Retroflexion in the proximal colon could be performed successfully and safely with the EC-3490Ti colonoscope. This maneuver could detect more adenomas effectively.

SUBMITTER: Li WK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7667455 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic value of novel retroflexion colonoscopy in the right colon: A randomized controlled trial.

Li Wen-Kun WK Wang Yun Y Wang Ya-Dan YD Liu Kui-Liang KL Guo Chun-Mei CM Su Hui H Liu Hong H Wu Jing J

World journal of gastrointestinal oncology 20201101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Colonoscopy is the accepted gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer. However, colonoscopy is less effective in preventing colon cancer in the right side compared with the left side.<h4>Aim</h4>To investigate the feasibility of a novel type of retroflexion colonoscope, EC-3490Ti colonoscope, for detection of proximal colon lesions.<h4>Methods</h4>In this prospective trial, we recruited patients who underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. When the endos ...[more]

PMID: 33250965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough colonoscopic retroflexion has been proved effective in reducing missed adenomas, there is still a lack of comprehensive and in-depth research focused on the ascending colon. We aimed to conduct a randomized controlled trial and tandem colonoscopy to investigate whether cecal retroflexion observed during colonoscopy can reduce missed adenomas in the ascending colon.MethodsMen and women required to be between 45 and 80 years of age were screened for enrollment in the trial. Patients were randomly assigned according to a 1:1 ratio to either the trial group or control group. Patients in the trial group underwent 2 forward examination and a cecal retroflexion observed in the ascending colon, while patients in the control group underwent only 2 forward examinations in the ascending colon. The primary outcome was adenoma miss rate. The secondary outcomes contained adenoma detection rate, polyp miss rate, polyp detection rate, insertion time and withdrawal time. Differences between groups in the primary outcome and in the other categorical indicators were tested using chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. For the comparison of continuous outcomes, the Student t test was applied.ResultsA total of 60 subjects were eligible for the study between April to June 2020, of which 55 were randomized and eligible for analysis (26 to the control group and 29 to the trial group). The characteristics of patients were no significant differences statistically between the trial group and the control group. Similarly, the characteristics of the colonoscopy procedures included cecal insertion distance, the length of cecum and ascending colon, insertion time, withdrawal time, quality of bowel preparation, numerical rating scale for pain, polyps detected, and adenomas detected, and there were no significant differences statistically between the 2 groups (P = .864, P = .754, P = .700, P = .974, P = .585, P = .835, P = .373, P = .489). The characteristics of the polyps were also no significant differences statistically between the 2 groups.ConclusionThis pilot trial failed to show benefit of cecal retroflexion observed on adenoma missing of ascending colon during colonoscopy; however, further conclusions require a prospective study with a higher level of evidence. (NCT03355443).

Project description:Although conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is widely used today, there remain many technical challenges especially for right colon cancer in obese patients. Herein, we develop a novel hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) with complete mesocolic excision (CME), D3 lymphadenectomy, and a total "no-touch" isolation technique (HALS-CME) in right hemicolectomy to overcome these issues. According to previous clinic practice, this novel procedure is not only feasible and safe but has several technical merits. However, the feasibility, short-term minimally invasive virtues, long-term oncological superiority, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME should be confirmed by a prospective randomized controlled trial.This is a single-center, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned to the HALS-CME group or to the laparoscopic surgery with CME, D3 lymphadenectomy, and total "no-touch" isolation technique (LAP-CME) group, or to conventional laparoscopic surgery with CME and D3 lymphadenectomy (cLAP) group at a 1:1:1 ratio using a centralized randomization list. Primary endpoints include safety, efficacy, and being oncologically clear, and 3-year disease-free, progression-free, and overall survival. Second endpoints include operative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, and incision length), pathologic evaluation (grading the plane of surgery, length of proximal and distal resection margins, distance between the tumor and the central arterial high tie, distance between the nearest bowel wall and the same high tie, area of mesentery resected, width of the chain of lymph-adipose tissue, length of the central lymph-adipose chain, number of harvested lymph nodes), and postoperative outcomes (pain intensity, postoperative inflammatory and immune responses, postoperative recovery).This trial will provide valuable clinical evidence for the feasibility, safety, and potential total "no-touch" isolation technique benefits of HALS-CME for right hemicolectomy. The hypothesis is that HALS-CME is feasible for the radical D3 resection of right colon cancer and offers short-term safety and long-term oncological superiority compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02625272 . Registered on 8 December 2015.

Project description:To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Project description:AimTo study the significance of cap-fitted colonoscopy in improving cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.MethodsThis study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.ResultsThere were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.ConclusionCAC did not significantly different from SC in term of cecal intubation time and polyp detection rate.

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough screening colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal colon cancers, effectiveness in preventing right-sided colon cancers is less clear. Previous studies have reported that retroflexion in the right colon improves adenoma detection. We aimed to determine whether a second withdrawal from the right colon in retroflexion vs. forward view alone leads to the detection of additional adenomas.MethodsPatients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial at two centers. After cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure, all visualized polyps removed, and endoscopist confidence recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Patients were randomized to a second exam of the proximal colon in forward (FV) or retroflexion view (RV), and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal from the proximal colon.ResultsA total of 850 patients (mean age 59.1±8.3 years, 59% female) were randomly assigned to FV (N=400) or RV (N=450). Retroflexion was successful in 93.5%. The ADR (46% FV and 47% RV) and numbers of adenomas per patient (0.9±1.4 FV and 1.1±2.1 RV) were similar (P=0.75 for both). At least one additional adenoma was detected on second withdrawal in similar proportions (10.5% FV and 7.5% RV, P=0.13). Predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.08), adenomas seen on initial withdrawal (OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.7-4.7), and low endoscopist confidence in quality of first examination of the right colon (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9-12.1). There were no adverse events.ConclusionsRetroflexion in the right colon can be safely achieved in the majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Reexamination of the right colon in either retroflexed or forward view yielded similar, incremental ADRs. A second exam of the right colon should be strongly considered in patients who have adenomas discovered in the right colon, particularly when endoscopist confidence in the quality of initial examination is low.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic value of novel retroflexion colonoscopy in the right colon: A randomized controlled trial.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Diagnostic value of novel retroflexion colonoscopy in the right colon: A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets