Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy is associated with a lower adenoma miss rate: a multicenter randomized tandem study

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (11) ◽  
pp. 1051-1060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Triantafyllou ◽  
Dimitrios Polymeros ◽  
Periklis Apostolopoulos ◽  
Catarina Lopes Brandao ◽  
Paraskevas Gkolfakis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims The Endocuff (ARC Medical Design, Leeds, UK) is a device that, when mounted on the tip of an endoscope, may assist with inspection of a greater surface of the colonic mucosa by pulling backwards, flattening, and stretching the colonic folds as the endoscope is gradually withdrawn. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with those of conventional colonoscopy. Patients and methods The included patients underwent same-day, back-to-back, (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy as the index procedure followed by conventional colonoscopy or vice versa, randomly assigned 1:1) colonoscopies, performed by six endoscopists with documented adenoma detection rates > 35 %, in four tertiary endoscopy facilities. Results We randomized 200 patients (mean age 61.2 years [standard deviation 9.8]; 86.5 % colorectal cancer screening surveillance cases). Overall, there were seven incomplete examinations using Endocuff and one with conventional colonoscopy (P = 0.03). Times for endoscope insertion (5.0 minutes [0.8 – 21.0] vs. 5.0 minutes [1.0 – 16.0]; P = 0.49) and withdrawal (6.0 minutes [3.2 – 29.0] vs. 6.0 minutes [3.1 – 17.0]; P = 0.06) were similar for Endocuff-assisted and conventional colonoscopy. We detected one cancer and 195 adenomas; 84 in the proximal colon. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy showed significantly lower overall and proximal colon adenoma miss rates compared with conventional colonoscopy (14.7 % [8.0 % – 21.0 %] vs. 38.4 % [28.1 % – 48.6 %] and 10.4 % [1.8 % – 19.1 %] vs. 38.9 % [23.0 % – 54.8 %], respectively). No difference between the two arms was shown regarding advanced adenoma miss rates, either overall or in the proximal colon. There were no serious adverse events related to the procedures. Conclusions In comparison with conventional colonoscopy, Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy has a significantly lower adenoma miss rate when performed by high-detector endoscopists. However, the incomplete colonoscopy rate with Endocuff is higher.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02340065.

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (11) ◽  
pp. 1061-1068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coty González-Fernández ◽  
David García-Rangel ◽  
Nancy Aguilar-Olivos ◽  
Rafael Barreto-Zúñiga ◽  
Adriana Romano-Munive ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aim Different techniques have been introduced to improve the endoscopist’s view and enhance the detection of polyps. The endocuff is a polymer sleeve cap that is connected to the tip of the colonoscope in order to improve visualization of the mucosa during colonoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare adenoma detection rates (ADR) of endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patients and methods Patients 50 years or older were randomized into two groups: an endocuff-assisted colonoscopy group and a conventional colonoscopy group without the endocuff. Results A total of 337 patients were included: 174 in the endocuff group and 163 in the conventional group. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 55 – 70 years), and 74 % were women. The ADR was higher in the endocuff group than in the conventional group (22.4 % vs. 13.5 %; P = 0.02). The mean number of adenomas was 0.30 (SD 0.25) in the endocuff group and 0.21 (SD 0.26) in the conventional group (P  = 0.02). The rate of ileal intubation was lower in the endocuff group (73 % vs. 87 %; P < 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred with the use of the endocuff. Conclusions Endocuff colonoscopy achieved a greater ADR than conventional colonoscopy.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC02387593).


2014 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. S-410
Author(s):  
Anand S. Shah ◽  
Heval Mohamed Kelli ◽  
Lauren M. Shea ◽  
Stephan U. Goebel ◽  
Emad S. Qayed

2012 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. S795
Author(s):  
Shashideep Singhal ◽  
Deepanshu Jain ◽  
Mojdeh Momeni ◽  
Sushil Duddempudi ◽  
Mahesh Krishnaiah ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document