Abstract:Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer prevention; however, it is still an imperfect modality. Precancerous lesions can be lost during screening examinations, thus increasing the risk of interval cancer. A variety of factors either patient-, or endoscopist dependent or even the procedure itself may contribute to loss of lesions. Sophisticated modalities including advanced technology endoscopes and add-on devices have been developed in an effort to eliminate colonoscopy’s drawbacks and maximize … Show more
“…Utilising technological adjuncts to augment ADRs have been explored[ 29 , 30 ]. High definition imaging and selective application of dyes are not useful in increasing ADRs[ 29 , 31 ].…”
AIMTo compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.METHODSA total of 300 colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital were retrospectively reviewed from May 2016 to June 2017. Exclusion criteria were: Patients ≤ 50 years old, colonoscopies with failure of caecal intubation, patients who previously had colon cancer and/or a colonic resection, history of polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Patient demographics, indications, symptoms and procedural-related outcomes were measured.RESULTSThe ADR was not significantly different between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (34% vs 34.67%; P = 0.90). The adjusted odds ratio correcting for gender, age, 1st degree relative with colorectal cancer, previous colonoscopy, trainee involvement and caecal or terminal ileum intubation rate was 1.19 (0.69-2.05).CONCLUSIONBoth specialties at our institution exceed benchmark standards suggested by published Australian and American guidelines. An association between endoscopist specialty and ADR was not observed.
“…Utilising technological adjuncts to augment ADRs have been explored[ 29 , 30 ]. High definition imaging and selective application of dyes are not useful in increasing ADRs[ 29 , 31 ].…”
AIMTo compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.METHODSA total of 300 colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons at Box Hill Hospital were retrospectively reviewed from May 2016 to June 2017. Exclusion criteria were: Patients ≤ 50 years old, colonoscopies with failure of caecal intubation, patients who previously had colon cancer and/or a colonic resection, history of polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease, or a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. Patient demographics, indications, symptoms and procedural-related outcomes were measured.RESULTSThe ADR was not significantly different between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons (34% vs 34.67%; P = 0.90). The adjusted odds ratio correcting for gender, age, 1st degree relative with colorectal cancer, previous colonoscopy, trainee involvement and caecal or terminal ileum intubation rate was 1.19 (0.69-2.05).CONCLUSIONBoth specialties at our institution exceed benchmark standards suggested by published Australian and American guidelines. An association between endoscopist specialty and ADR was not observed.
“…Many technical modifications have been trialled with regard to the polyp and adenoma detection rates [6]. While withdrawal time appears to be an important factor influencing polyp and adenoma detection rates [7], innovations of technology may have a small but significant effect on polyp and subsequent adenoma detection rates [6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While withdrawal time appears to be an important factor influencing polyp and adenoma detection rates [7], innovations of technology may have a small but significant effect on polyp and subsequent adenoma detection rates [6]. Technological improvements include widened fields of view, incorporation of more than one camera that allows simultaneous image transmission or add-on attachable devices on standard colonoscopes that facilitate the detection of lesions in the proximal aspect of colonic folds [6]. As an example, a recent systematic review assessing the effects of Endocuff ® concluded that the use of this device significantly improved pre-cancerous polyp detection from 43.3 to 50.4% [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many technical modifications have been trialled with regard to the polyp and adenoma detection rates [6]. While withdrawal time appears to be an important factor influencing polyp and adenoma detection rates [7], innovations of technology may have a small but significant effect on polyp and subsequent adenoma detection rates [6]. Technological improvements include widened fields of view, incorporation of more than one camera that allows simultaneous image transmission or add-on attachable devices on standard colonoscopes that facilitate the detection of lesions in the proximal aspect of colonic folds [6].…”
Background and Aims: Simethicone is a common antifoaming agent that is added to endoscopic rinse solutions, but data regarding its effect on polyp detection rates is lacking. In this study, we report the effect of discontinuation of this practice on polyp detection rates. Methods: Procedure data of 4,254 consecutive colonoscopies were used. Patients underwent standard bowel preparation with polyethyleneglycol (Glycoprep®). Colonoscopies were performed utilising Olympus EVIS EXERA III, CV-190 equipment, while quality data (withdraw times, polyp detection rates, quality of bowel preparation) was assessed utilising an endoscopy reporting system (Provation®). Following an educational event that highlighted that simethicone may form deposits in the channels of endoscopes, the practice to add simethicone (InfacolR, Nice Pak) to the auxiliary channel water pump was abandoned, but endoscopists were not notified about this change. After 5 days and performing 75 colonoscopies, the change of practice was identified and addition of simethicone recommenced. Results: The discontinuation of simethicone use reduced the polyp detection rate from 55% (95% CI 53–56) to 45% (95% CI 34–56, 1-sided, p = 0.028); the polyp detection rate returned to the pre-intervention levels of 55% (95% CI 52–58) upon resumption of normal practice. Conclusion: The addition of simethicone to the auxiliary water pump during colonoscopy results in a 10% increase in polyp detection rates.
“…Inadequate bowel preparation, lack of physician’s expertise, inability to accurately visualize the colonic mucosa located proximal to the haustral folds or in proximity to anatomic flexures have been listed among the main reasons such lesions can be missed during a colonoscopy[ 12 ]. Lately, several devices-ranging from complex endoscopic systems to simple plastic attachments- have been developed, in an attempt to address this problem[ 13 ]. They promise to flatten the mucosa during scope withdrawal and facilitate maneuverability around anatomic flexures offering meticulous mucosal visualization and detection of “hidden” lesions.…”
Although colonoscopy has been proven effective in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer through the detection and removal of precancerous lesions, it remains an imperfect examination, as it can fail in detecting up to almost one fourth of existing adenomas. Among reasons accounting for such failures, is the inability to meticulously visualize the colonic mucosa located either proximal to haustral folds or anatomic curves, including the hepatic and splenic flexures. In order to overcome these limitations, various colonoscope attachments aiming to improve mucosal visualization have been developed. All of them - transparent cap, Endocuff, Endocuff Vision and Endorings - are simply mounted onto the distal tip of the scope. In this review article, we introduce the rationale of their development, present their mode of action and discuss in detail the effect of their implementation in the detection of lesions during colonoscopy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.