Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings

Abstract

Background and study aims Mucosal exposure devices on the colonoscope tip have improved detection. We evaluated detection and procedure times in colonoscopies performed with EndoRings.

Patients and methods We had 14 endoscopists in a university practice trial EndoRings. We compared detection and procedure times to age- and indication-matched procedures by the same endoscopists.

Results There were 137 procedures with EndoRings. The adenoma detection rate was 44 % with EndoRings vs. 39 % without (P = 0.39). Mean adenomas per colonoscopy (standard deviation) was 1.2 (2.3) with EndoRings vs. 0.9 (1.6) without (P = 0.055). Mean insertion time with EndoRings was 6.2 (3.2) minutes vs. 6.6 (6.7) minutes without (P = 0.81). Mean withdrawal time with EndoRings in all patients with or without polypectomy was 12.2 (5.3) minutes and 16.1 (10.3) minutes without (P = 0.0005).

Conclusion EndoRings may allow faster withdrawal during colonoscopy without any reduction in detection. Prospective trials with mucosal exposure devices targeting procedure times as primary endpoints are warranted.

• References

• 1 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
• 2 Corley D, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 3 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 4 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
• 5 Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS. et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-931
• 6 Abdul-Baki H, Schoen RE, Dean K. et al. Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 676-682
• 7 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C. et al. Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270-277
• 8 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ. et al. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 499-505
• 9 Pohl J, Schneider A, Vogell H. et al. Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut 2011; 60: 485-490
• 10 Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I. et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1301-1307
• 11 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 775-781
• 12 Chin M, Karnes W, Jamal MM. et al. Use of the Endocuff during routine colonoscopy examination improves adenoma detection: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 9642-9649
• 13 Dik VK, Gralnek IM, Segol O. et al. Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy--results of the CLEVER study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1151-1158
• 14 Bick BL VK, Rex DK. Regional center for complex colonoscopy: yield of neoplasia in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 1239-1244
• 15 Tsiamoulos ZP, Misra R, Rameshshanker R. et al. Impact of a new distal attachment on colonoscopy performance in an academic screening center. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 280-287