Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2018; 06(04): E425-E431
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-101142
Original article
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps

Yoshiki Wada
1   Wada Clinic – Endoscopic Department, Wakayama, Japan
2   Medical Hospital of Tokyo Medical and Dental University – Endoscopic Department, Tokyo, Japan
,
Masayoshi Fukuda
2   Medical Hospital of Tokyo Medical and Dental University – Endoscopic Department, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kazuo Ohtsuka
2   Medical Hospital of Tokyo Medical and Dental University – Endoscopic Department, Tokyo, Japan
,
Mamoru Watanabe
3   Medical Hospital of Tokyo Medical and Dental University – Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yumiko Fukuma
1   Wada Clinic – Endoscopic Department, Wakayama, Japan
,
Yoko Wada
1   Wada Clinic – Endoscopic Department, Wakayama, Japan
,
Masahiro Wada
1   Wada Clinic – Endoscopic Department, Wakayama, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 24 August 2017

accepted after submission 18 December 2017

Publication Date:
29 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal adenomas and cancers. Endoscopic surveillance has been shown to be effective for preventing colorectal cancer. Although detection of colorectal polyps at an early stage is important, endoscopic visualization of early neoplasia can be difficult. The Endocuff is a new device that can be attached to the tip of the colonoscope to hold the colonic folds away from the field of view during withdrawal. The aim of this study was to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and the mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP) achieved using Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).

Patients and methods This randomized prospective study was conducted at two academic endoscopy departments in Japan. A total of 447 patients underwent a complete colonoscopic examination between April 2015 and September 2015. The EAC group included 239 patients. The cecal intubation rate, insertion time, withdrawal time, pain score, complications, polyp detection rate (PDR), ADR, the mean number of polyps detected per patient (MPP), and the MAP were assessed.

Results There were no differences between the EAC and SC groups in terms of cecal intubation rate, insertion time, withdrawal time, or pain scores. The PDR in patients increased by about 12 % (61.9 % vs. 49.2 %, P = 0.013) and ADR increased by 15 % (52.5 % vs. 39.2 %, P = 0.001) with the use of the Endocuff. The advanced ADR was higher in the EAC group but no statistically significant difference was found (7.7 % vs. 4.6 %, P = 0.17). Both MPP and MAP were also higher in the EAC group (mean ± SD: 1.33 ± 1.43 vs. 0.83 ± 0.99 per patient; P < 0.01, 1.11 ± 1.41 vs. 0.66 ± 0.99 per patient; P < 0.01, respectively). No major complications occurred.

Conclusions EAC not only enabled a higher ADR but also significantly increased the mean number of adenomas identified per patient, as compared with SC.

 

  • References

  • 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I. et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1624-1633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Winawer SJ, Fletcher R, Rex D. et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 544-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stocker J. et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT. et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K. et al. Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 444-447
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 519-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE. et al. Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1769-1772
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Brown S, Baraza W, Hurlstone P. Chromoendoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 04: CD006439
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Horimatsu T, Sano Y, Tanaka S. et al. Next-generation narrow band imaging system for colonic polyp detection: a prospective multicenter randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30: 947-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Waye JD, Heigh RI, Fleischer DE. et al. A retrograde-viewing device improves detection of adenomas in the colon: a prospective efficacy evaluation (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 551-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A. et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z. et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T. et al. A novel extra-wide-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 480-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chin M, Kames 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lai EJ, Calderwood A, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cadoni S, Falt P, Gallittu P. et al. Water exchange is the least-painful colonoscope insertion technique, increasing completion of unsedated colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1972-1980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gupta N. How to improve your adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 1054-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Yoon JY, Cha JM. Can we measure the learning curve of colonoscopy using polyp detection rate?. Clin Endosc 2016; 49: 6-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA. (eds.) World Health Organization classification of tumors: Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Digestive System. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2000: 103-119
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Second English Edition. Tokyo: Kanehara & Co., LTD; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Lamber R, Lightdale C. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon. Gastrointestinal Endosc 2003; 58: S3-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien ML. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of clorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R. et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee TJW, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Westwood DA, Alexakis N, Connor SJ. et al. Transparent cap-assisted colonoscopy versus standard adult colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2012; 55: 218-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Morgan JL, Thomas K, Braungart S. et al. Transparent cap colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2013; 17: 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Omata F, Ohde S, Deshpande GA. et al. Image-enhanced, chromo, and cap-assisted colonoscopy for improving adenoma/neoplasia detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 222-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pohl H. Cap-assisted Colonoscopy and Detection of Adenomatous Polyps (CAP) study: A randomized trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 891-897
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A. et al. Novel endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015; 49: 413-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Floer M, Biecker E, Ro H. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy – a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e114267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Marsano J, Tzimas D, Mckinley M. et al. Endocuff assisted colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rates: a multi-center study. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79 (Suppl. 05) AB550
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gonzalez-Fernandez C, Garcia-Rangel D, Aquilar-Olivos NE. et al. Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1061-1068
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 De Palma GD, Giglio MC, Bruzzese D. et al. Cap cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized back-to-back study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 232-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 van Doorn SC, van der Vlugt M, Depla A. et al. Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Gut 2017; 66: 438-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar