BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the "gold standard" for colorectal polyp and cancer detection, but important lesions may be missed on the proximal aspect of haustral folds, rectal valves, or flexures. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate a prototype auxiliary imaging device that extends beyond the colonoscope's tip, providing a continuous retrograde view to detect lesions missed by the forward-viewing colonoscope. DESIGN: Three anatomic models of the colon were prepared with simulated polyps, 32% in obvious locations and 68% on the proximal aspect of folds. Six endoscopists examined each model with two methods. Method A used a standard video colonoscope. Method B involved an identical colonoscope with a retrograde-viewing auxiliary device positioned within its instrument channel. Order of testing was randomized and blinded. SETTING: Laboratory bench. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection rates for simulated polyps. RESULTS: Of 78 "obvious" polyps, 69 (88%) and 70 (90%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P > .9). In contrast, of 162 polyps on proximal aspects of folds, 20 (12%) and 131 (81%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P < .00001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations resulted from (1) use of commercially available anatomic models in which haustral folds are less prominent and more rigid than in humans and (2) evaluation of a prototype device that had larger size and narrower angle of view than the planned production model and that was fixed in relation to the colonoscope. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated testing, a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device used with a standard video colonoscope significantly improves detection rates of simulated polyps and promises to enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in humans.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the "gold standard" for colorectal polyp and cancer detection, but important lesions may be missed on the proximal aspect of haustral folds, rectal valves, or flexures. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to evaluate a prototype auxiliary imaging device that extends beyond the colonoscope's tip, providing a continuous retrograde view to detect lesions missed by the forward-viewing colonoscope. DESIGN: Three anatomic models of the colon were prepared with simulated polyps, 32% in obvious locations and 68% on the proximal aspect of folds. Six endoscopists examined each model with two methods. Method A used a standard video colonoscope. Method B involved an identical colonoscope with a retrograde-viewing auxiliary device positioned within its instrument channel. Order of testing was randomized and blinded. SETTING: Laboratory bench. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection rates for simulated polyps. RESULTS: Of 78 "obvious" polyps, 69 (88%) and 70 (90%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P > .9). In contrast, of 162 polyps on proximal aspects of folds, 20 (12%) and 131 (81%) were detected by methods A and B, respectively (P < .00001). LIMITATIONS: Limitations resulted from (1) use of commercially available anatomic models in which haustral folds are less prominent and more rigid than in humans and (2) evaluation of a prototype device that had larger size and narrower angle of view than the planned production model and that was fixed in relation to the colonoscope. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated testing, a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device used with a standard video colonoscope significantly improves detection rates of simulated polyps and promises to enhance the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in humans.
Authors: Vicente Parot; Daryl Lim; Germán González; Giovanni Traverso; Norman S Nishioka; Benjamin J Vakoc; Nicholas J Durr Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Nooman Gilani; Sally Stipho; James D Panetta; Sorin Petre; Michele A Young; Francisco C Ramirez Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-05-16
Authors: Sarah K McGill; Shivangi Kothari; Shai Friedland; Ann Chen; Walter G Park; Subhas Banerjee Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 5.742