Literature DB >> 21067735

Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study.

Anke M Leufkens1, Daniel C DeMarco, Amit Rastogi, Paul A Akerman, Kassem Azzouzi, Richard I Rothstein, Frank P Vleggaar, Alessandro Repici, Giacomo Rando, Patrick I Okolo, Olivier Dewit, Ana Ignjatovic, Elizabeth Odstrcil, James East, Pierre H Deprez, Brian P Saunders, Anthony N Kalloo, Bradley Creel, Vikas Singh, Anne Marie Lennon, Peter D Siersema.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is currently the optimal method for detecting colorectal polyps, some are missed. The Third Eye Retroscope provides an additional retrograde view that may detect polyps behind folds.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of the Third Eye Retroscope to colonoscopy improves the adenoma detection rate.
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: Nine European and U.S. centers. PATIENTS: Of 448 enrolled subjects, 395 had data for 2 procedures.
INTERVENTIONS: Subjects underwent same-day tandem examinations with standard colonoscopy (SC) and Third Eye colonoscopy (TEC). Subjects were randomized to SC followed by TEC or TEC followed by SC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection rates for all polyps and adenomas with each method.
RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, 173 subjects underwent SC and then TEC, and TEC yielded 78 additional polyps (48.8%), including 49 adenomas (45.8%). In 176 subjects undergoing TEC and then SC, SC yielded 31 additional polyps (19.0%), including 26 adenomas (22.6%). Net additional detection rates with TEC were 29.8% for polyps and 23.2% for adenomas. The relative risk of missing with SC compared with TEC was 2.56 for polyps (P < .001) and 1.92 for adenomas (P = .029). Mean withdrawal times for SC and TEC were 7.58 and 9.52 minutes, respectively (P < .001). The median difference in withdrawal times was 1 minute (P < .001). The mean total procedure times for SC and TEC were 16.97 and 20.87 minutes, respectively (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Despite randomization and a large cohort, there was disparity in polyp prevalence between the 2 groups of subjects.
CONCLUSION: The Third Eye Retroscope increases adenoma detection rate by visualizing areas behind folds. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01044732.).
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21067735     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  62 in total

1.  Removal of infused water predominantly during insertion (water exchange) is consistently associated with an increase in adenoma detection rate - review of data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of water-related methods.

Authors:  Fw Leung; Jo Harker; Jw Leung; Rm Siao-Salera; Sk Mann; Fc Ramirez; S Friedland; A Amato; F Radaelli; S Paggi; V Terruzzi; Yh Hsieh
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-07-01

2.  Comprehensive Reports on the Latest Advances in Gastroenterology and Hepatology From:: The 76th American College of Gastroenterology Annual Scientific Meeting and Postgraduate CourseOctober 28-November 2, 2011Washington, DCThe 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver DiseasesNovember 4-8, 2011San Francisco, California2011 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/Crohn's & Colitis Foundations Clinical and Research ConferenceDecember 1-3, 2011Hollywood, Florida.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2012-03

3.  Expanding the view of a standard colonoscope with the Third Eye Panoramic cap.

Authors:  Moshe Rubin; Leigh Lurie; Konika Bose; Sang H Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  How to improve colon cancer screening rates.

Authors:  Luiz Ronaldo Alberti; Diego Paim Carvalho Garcia; Debora Lucciola Coelho; David Correa Alves De Lima; Andy Petroianu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-12-15

5.  Benchmarking and quality-screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Felix W Leung
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-01

Review 6.  The Use of Attachment Devices to Aid in Adenoma Detection.

Authors:  Zoe Lawrence; Seth A Gross
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-27

Review 7.  New imaging techniques and opportunities in endoscopy.

Authors:  Ralf Kiesslich; Martin Goetz; Arthur Hoffman; Peter Robert Galle
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 46.802

8.  Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial.

Authors:  Ian M Gralnek; Peter D Siersema; Zamir Halpern; Ori Segol; Alaa Melhem; Alain Suissa; Erwin Santo; Alan Sloyer; Jay Fenster; Leon M G Moons; Vincent K Dik; Ralph B D'Agostino; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 9.  Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.

Authors:  Ernst J Kuipers; Thomas Rösch; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 10.  Status of colorectal cancer devices: present scenario.

Authors:  Shammy Chandel; Reyhan Akhtar; Pooja Sarotra; Bikash Medhi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2015-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.