Endoscopy 2017; 49(10): 1015
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-115006
Letter to the editor
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

What if we examine the right colon four, five, or even more times?

Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 September 2017 (online)

Preview

I enjoyed reading the study by Lee at al. [1], which showed the significant incremental benefit of examining the right colon with colonoscope retroflexion after two consecutive forward-view inspections of this colonic segment.

At a glance, the study results are scary. After two examinations, 10 % of the adenomas were missed in the right colon. A spontaneous question arises from this observation: “Would more adenomas have been detected after a fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. pass?”

I prefer to interpret the results in a different way, and my pivotal question would be: “What went wrong during the first forward-view examination of the right colon?”

In this study, the proportion of adenomas detected during the first pass was lower than those reported in the four studies discussed in the manuscript (76.8 % vs. 81.4 % – 94.9 %) [2] [3] [4] [5], and significantly lower (P < 0.001) than those in three of them [2] [3] [5].

Therefore, the impressive (and scary, at the same time) study results could be attributed to the study design, at least partially. As each endoscopist acted as their own control during the three passes, endoscopists might have subconsciously (even consciously) introduced a bias to demonstrate the incremental benefit of the third retroflexion examination [6]. In an attempt to evaluate this possible interpretation of these results, an examination of the individual colonoscopist performance during the first pass of the study might prove of value.