The Role of Behind Folds Visualizing Techniques and Technologies in Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

Keulen, Kelly E. van; Soons, Elsa; Siersema, Peter D.

doi:10.1007/s11938-019-00242-5

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, maneuverability may be expected to be more difficult with EndoRings, which is characterized by a bulkier shape with three circular rows of flexible silicone‐rubber rings 25 . However, both cecal intubation rate (RR 1.00, 0.99–1.01) and cecal intubation time (mean difference 0.20 min, −0.34 to 0.74) were similar between the two groups in our meta‐analysis, probably owing to the high experience of the endoscopists involved in the included trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Facciorusso

Mohan

Crinò

et al. 2020

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim Evidence of a superior efficacy of EndoRings over standard colonoscopy in improving colon adenoma detection rate is lacking. We aimed to compare EndoRings and standard colonoscopy through a pairwise meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Methods We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through July 2020 and identified five randomized controlled trials (recruiting 2751 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included advanced and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate, and time. We performed pairwise meta‐analysis through a random‐effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 53.9% (49–58.8%) with EndoRings and 49.1% (42–56.1%) with standard colonoscopy (risk ratio 1.05, 0.95–1.17). Advanced adenoma detection (risk ratio 0.91, 0.74–1.12), sessile serrated detection rate (risk ratio 1.10, 0.81–1.50), and polyp detection rate (risk ratio 1.06, 0.98–1.15) were similar between the two groups. Likewise, mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.17, −0.09 to 0.43), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 1.00, 0.99–1.01), and cecal intubation time (mean difference 0.20 min, −0.34 to 0.74) did not differ between the two add‐on devices. No serious adverse event was observed. Conclusion EndoRings did not seem to significantly improve the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Facciorusso

Mohan

Crinò

et al. 2020

J of Gastro and Hepatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study by Shirin et al [57] found that the technique yielded a higher detection rate of adenomas/polyps (ADR and PDR), including well-formed, flat and sessile serrated ones, when compared to SC. When meta-analysed with a previously published paper by Halpern et al [58], Keulen et al [59] discovered that ADR by means of the G-Eye endoscope is 30% higher than SC.…”

Section: Non-robotic Colonoscopes and Colonoscopy Adjuncts In The CLImentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies

Ciuti

Skonieczna-Żydecka

Marlicz

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flexible colonoscopy remains the prime mean of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and the gold standard of all population-based screening pathways around the world. Almost 60% of CRC deaths could be prevented with screening. However, colonoscopy attendance rates are affected by discomfort, fear of pain and embarrassment or loss of control during the procedure. Moreover, the emergence and global thread of new communicable diseases might seriously affect the functioning of contemporary centres performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Innovative solutions are needed: artificial intelligence (AI) and physical robotics will drastically contribute for the future of the healthcare services. The translation of robotic technologies from traditional surgery to minimally invasive endoscopic interventions is an emerging field, mainly challenged by the tough requirements for miniaturization. Pioneering approaches for robotic colonoscopy have been reported in the nineties, with the appearance of inchworm-like devices. Since then, robotic colonoscopes with assistive functionalities have become commercially available. Research prototypes promise enhanced accessibility and flexibility for future therapeutic interventions, even via autonomous or robotic-assisted agents, such as robotic capsules. Furthermore, the pairing of such endoscopic systems with AI-enabled image analysis and recognition methods promises enhanced diagnostic yield. By assembling a multidisciplinary team of engineers and endoscopists, the paper aims to provide a contemporary and highly-pictorial critical review for robotic colonoscopes, hence providing clinicians and researchers with a glimpse of the major changes and challenges that lie ahead.

show abstract

“…27 A recent systematic review and meta-analysis looking at 'behind fold visualising techniques' including cap-assisted ENDOCUFF VISION, EndoRings and FUSE showed no improvement in ADR compared with conventional colonoscopy although there was a significant improvement with G-Eye (Pentax, Japan) with an RR of 1.3. 28 Although colonoscopy remains the gold standard for investigation of the colon, there are those who are unable to tolerate complete optical colonoscopy. Other options for luminal screening include computed tomographic (CT) colonography and colon capsule endoscopy.…”

Section: Improving Lesion Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent systematic review and meta-analysis looking at ‘behind fold visualising techniques’ including cap-assisted ENDOCUFF VISION, EndoRings and FUSE showed no improvement in ADR compared with conventional colonoscopy although there was a significant improvement with G-Eye (Pentax, Japan) with an RR of 1.3. 28…”

Section: Improving Lesion Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: where are we now?

Sivananthan

Glover

Ayaru

et al. 2020

Clin Med Insights Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has evolved over time, fulfilling a widening diagnostic and therapeutic remit. As our understanding of colorectal cancer and its prevention has improved, endoscopy has progressed with improved diagnostic technologies and advancing endoscopic therapies. Despite this, the fundamental design of the endoscope has remained similar since its inception. This review presents the important role lower gastrointestinal endoscopy serves in the prevention of colorectal cancer and the desirable characteristics of the endoscope that would enhance this. A brief history of the endoscope is presented. Current and future robotic endoscopic platforms, which may fulfil these desirable characteristics, are discussed. The incorporation of new technologies from allied scientific disciplines will help the endoscope fulfil its maximum potential in preventing the increasing global burden of colorectal cancer. There are a number of endoscopic platforms under development, which show significant promise.

show abstract

The Role of Behind Folds Visualizing Techniques and Technologies in Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies

The evolution of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: where are we now?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About