BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy with polypectomy can prevent up to 80% of colorectal cancers, a significant adenoma miss rate still exists, particularly in the right colon. Previous studies addressing right colon retroflexion have revealed discordant evidence regarding the benefit of this maneuver on adenoma detection with concomitant concerns about safety and rates of maneuver success. In this meta-analysis, we sought to determine the effect of right colon retroflexion on improving adenoma detection compared with conventional colonoscopy without retroflexion, as well as determine the rates of retroflexion maneuver success and adverse events. METHODS: Multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies on right colon retroflexion and its impact on adenoma detection compared with conventional colonoscopy. Pooled analyses of adenoma detection and retroflexion success were based on mixed-effects and random-effects models with heterogeneity analyses. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (N=3660). The primary analysis comparing colonoscopy with right-sided retroflexion versus conventional colonoscopy to determine the per-adenoma miss rate in the right colon was 16.9% (95% confidence interval, 12.5%-22.5%). The overall rate of successful retroflexion was 91.9% (95% confidence interval, 86%-95%) and rate of adverse events was 0.03%. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with right-sided retroflexion significantly increases the detection of adenomas in the right colon compared with conventional colonoscopy with a high rate of maneuver success and small risk of adverse events. Thus, reexamination of the right colon in retroflexed view should be strongly considered in future standard of care colonoscopy guidelines for quality improvement in colon cancer prevention.
BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy with polypectomy can prevent up to 80% of colorectal cancers, a significant adenoma miss rate still exists, particularly in the right colon. Previous studies addressing right colon retroflexion have revealed discordant evidence regarding the benefit of this maneuver on adenoma detection with concomitant concerns about safety and rates of maneuver success. In this meta-analysis, we sought to determine the effect of right colon retroflexion on improving adenoma detection compared with conventional colonoscopy without retroflexion, as well as determine the rates of retroflexion maneuver success and adverse events. METHODS: Multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies on right colon retroflexion and its impact on adenoma detection compared with conventional colonoscopy. Pooled analyses of adenoma detection and retroflexion success were based on mixed-effects and random-effects models with heterogeneity analyses. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (N=3660). The primary analysis comparing colonoscopy with right-sided retroflexion versus conventional colonoscopy to determine the per-adenoma miss rate in the right colon was 16.9% (95% confidence interval, 12.5%-22.5%). The overall rate of successful retroflexion was 91.9% (95% confidence interval, 86%-95%) and rate of adverse events was 0.03%. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with right-sided retroflexion significantly increases the detection of adenomas in the right colon compared with conventional colonoscopy with a high rate of maneuver success and small risk of adverse events. Thus, reexamination of the right colon in retroflexed view should be strongly considered in future standard of care colonoscopy guidelines for quality improvement in colon cancer prevention.
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: Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Christopher D Jensen; Miriam P van der Meulen; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Douglas A Corley; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mandeep S Sawhney; Marcelo S Cury; Naama Neeman; Long H Ngo; Janet M Lewis; Ram Chuttani; Douglas K Pleskow; Mark D Aronson Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ian Mark Gralnek; Ori Segol; Alain Suissa; Peter D Siersema; David L Carr-Locke; Zamir Halpern; Erwin Santo; Svetlana Domanov Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Faisal Kamal; Muhammad Ali Khan; Wade Lee-Smith; Sachit Sharma; Ashu Acharya; Zaid Imam; Umer Farooq; John Hanson; Vian Pulous; Muhammad Aziz; Saurabh Chandan; Abdul Kouanda; Sun-Chuan Dai; Craig A Munroe; Colin W Howden Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-10-17
Authors: Ma Henar Núñez Rodríguez; Pilar Díez Redondo; Fausto Riu Pons; Marta Cimavilla; Luis Hernández; Andrea Loza; Manuel Pérez-Miranda Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Pu Wang; Tyler M Berzin; Jeremy Romek Glissen Brown; Shishira Bharadwaj; Aymeric Becq; Xun Xiao; Peixi Liu; Liangping Li; Yan Song; Di Zhang; Yi Li; Guangre Xu; Mengtian Tu; Xiaogang Liu Journal: Gut Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Timo Rath; Lukas Pfeifer; Clemens Neufert; Andreas Kremer; Moritz Leppkes; Arthur Hoffman; Markus F Neurath; Steffen Zopf Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 5.742