AIM: To evaluate the new RetroView™ colonoscope and compare its ability to detect simulated polyps "hidden" behind colonic folds with that of a conventional colonoscope, utilizing anatomic colon models. METHODS: Three anatomic colon models were prepared, with twelve simulated polyps "hidden" behind haustral folds and five placed in easily viewed locations in each model. Five blinded endoscopists examined two colon models in random order with the conventional or RetroView™ colonoscope, utilizing standard withdrawal technique. The third colon model was then examined with the RetroView™ colonoscope withdrawn initially in retroflexion and then in standard withdrawal. Polyp detection rates during standard and retroflexed withdrawal of the conventional and RetroView™ colonoscopes were determined. Polyp detection rates for combined standard and retroflexed withdrawal (combination withdrawal) with the RetroView™ colonoscope were also determined. RESULTS: For hidden polyps, retroflexed withdrawal using the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (85% vs 12%, P = 0.0001). For hidden polyps, combination withdrawal with the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (93% vs 12%, P ≤ 0.0001). The RetroView™ colonoscope in "combination withdrawal" was superior to other methods in detecting all (hidden + easily visible) polyps, with successful detection of 80 of 85 polyps (94%) compared to 28 (32%) polyps detected by the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (P < 0.0001) and 67 (79%) polyps detected by the RetroView™ colonoscope in retroflexed withdrawal alone (P < 0.01). Continuous withdrawal of the colonoscope through the colon model while retroflexed was achieved by all endoscopists. In a post-test survey, four out of five colonoscopists reported that manipulation of the colonoscope was easy or very easy. CONCLUSION: In simulated testing, the RetroView™ colonoscope increased detection of hidden polyps. Combining standard withdrawal with retroflexed withdrawal may become the new paradigm for "complete screening colonoscopy".
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the new RetroView™ colonoscope and compare its ability to detect simulated polyps "hidden" behind colonic folds with that of a conventional colonoscope, utilizing anatomic colon models. METHODS: Three anatomic colon models were prepared, with twelve simulated polyps "hidden" behind haustral folds and five placed in easily viewed locations in each model. Five blinded endoscopists examined two colon models in random order with the conventional or RetroView™ colonoscope, utilizing standard withdrawal technique. The third colon model was then examined with the RetroView™ colonoscope withdrawn initially in retroflexion and then in standard withdrawal. Polyp detection rates during standard and retroflexed withdrawal of the conventional and RetroView™ colonoscopes were determined. Polyp detection rates for combined standard and retroflexed withdrawal (combination withdrawal) with the RetroView™ colonoscope were also determined. RESULTS: For hidden polyps, retroflexed withdrawal using the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (85% vs 12%, P = 0.0001). For hidden polyps, combination withdrawal with the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (93% vs 12%, P ≤ 0.0001). The RetroView™ colonoscope in "combination withdrawal" was superior to other methods in detecting all (hidden + easily visible) polyps, with successful detection of 80 of 85 polyps (94%) compared to 28 (32%) polyps detected by the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (P < 0.0001) and 67 (79%) polyps detected by the RetroView™ colonoscope in retroflexed withdrawal alone (P < 0.01). Continuous withdrawal of the colonoscope through the colon model while retroflexed was achieved by all endoscopists. In a post-test survey, four out of five colonoscopists reported that manipulation of the colonoscope was easy or very easy. CONCLUSION: In simulated testing, the RetroView™ colonoscope increased detection of hidden polyps. Combining standard withdrawal with retroflexed withdrawal may become the new paradigm for "complete screening colonoscopy".
Authors: Daniel C DeMarco; Elizabeth Odstrcil; Luis F Lara; David Bass; Chase Herdman; Timothy Kinney; Kapil Gupta; Leon Wolf; Thomas Dewar; Thomas M Deas; Manoj K Mehta; M Badar Anwer; Randall Pellish; J Kent Hamilton; Daniel Polter; K Gautham Reddy; Ira Hanan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Erich V Kliewer; Salaheddin M Mahmud; Charles N Bernstein Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-06-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Su Jin Chung; Donghee Kim; Ji Hyun Song; Min Jung Park; Young Sun Kim; Joo Sung Kim; Hyun Chae Jung; In Sung Song Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Anke M Leufkens; 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 Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jerome D Waye; Russell I Heigh; David E Fleischer; Jonathan A Leighton; Suryakanth Gurudu; Leslie B Aldrich; Jiayi Li; Sanjay Ramrakhiani; Steven A Edmundowicz; Dayna S Early; Sreenivasa Jonnalagadda; Robert S Bresalier; William R Kessler; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J Pohl; E Lotterer; C Balzer; M Sackmann; K-D Schmidt; L Gossner; C Schaab; T Frieling; M Medve; G Mayer; M Nguyen-Tat; C Ell Journal: Gut Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 23.059