Endoscopy 2014; 46(10): 883-887
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377968
Innovations and brief communications
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Safety and efficacy of a novel balloon colonoscope: a prospective cohort study[*]

Ian M. Gralnek
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
2   Endoscopy Unit, Elisha Hospital, Haifa, Israel
3   Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Alain Suissa
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
2   Endoscopy Unit, Elisha Hospital, Haifa, Israel
Sveta Domanov
2   Endoscopy Unit, Elisha Hospital, Haifa, Israel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 September 2014 (online)

Background and study aims: Although colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC), adenomas and cancers are missed. We aimed to establish the safety and feasibility of use of a novel balloon-colonoscope.

Patients and methods: Patients (40 – 75 years) referred for CRC screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic evaluation were enrolled in a prospective pilot cohort study whose primary endpoint was device safety. Additional endpoints included success of and time to cecal intubation, withdrawal and total procedure times, polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and success of polypectomies.

Results: Among 50 patients (mean age 59.0 years, 27 women [54 %]), three were excluded (inadequate colon preparation, technical problem, abdominal hernia) and 47 were analyzed. Two patients experienced minor adverse events (diarrhea, abdominal pain). Cecal intubation rate was 47 /47 (100 %). Mean times, to reach cecum, withdrawal, and total procedure, were 4.3, 7.4, and 16.5 minutes, respectively. We identified 44 polyps (all successfully removed) in 25 /47 patients (PDR 53.2 %), 35 polyps (79.5 %) were 1 – 5 mm, 4 (9.1 %) 6 – 9 mm, and 5 (11.4 %) ≥ 10 mm. Of 44 polyps, 36 (81.8 %) were “adenomas”; 21/47 patients had ≥ 1 adenoma (ADR 44.7 %).

Conclusions: The NaviAid G-EYE balloon-colonoscope appears safe and feasible to use. Comparative human studies are underway.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01749722

* This was presented in abstract form as a poster presentation (IMG) at Digestive Diseases Week (DDW) 2013, May 2013, Orlando, Florida, USA

  • References

  • 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
  • 2 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
  • 3 Lieberman DA, Rex DK et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: A consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
  • 4 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopy polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
  • 5 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
  • 6 Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE et al. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125-127
  • 7 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
  • 8 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
  • 9 Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 284-290
  • 10 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A et al. Effect of retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
  • 11 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MGH, Siersema PD. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
  • 12 Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 858-864
  • 13 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95
  • 14 Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 519-522
  • 15 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
  • 16 Rex DK. Update on colonoscopic imaging and projections for the future. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 318-321
  • 17 ASGE Technology Committee. Report on emerging technology: devices to improve colon polyp detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1092-1097
  • 18 Rex DK. Accessing proximal aspects of folds and flexures during colonoscopy: impact of a pediatric colonoscope with a short bending section. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1504-1507
  • 19 Rex DK, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ. Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency as determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2000-2005
  • 20 Sanchez-Yague A, Kaltenbach T, Yamamoto H et al. The endoscopic cap that can (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 169-178
  • 21 DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-550
  • 22 Waye JD, Heigh RI, Rex DK et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 551-556
  • 23 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T et al. A novel extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 480-483
  • 24 Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O et al. Comparison of standard forward viewing mode versus ultra-wide viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 472-479
  • 25 Gralnek IM, Segol O, Suissa A et al. A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 697-702
  • 26 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360
  • 27 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
  • 28 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359