Madhav Desai1, Andre Sanchez-Yague2, Abhishek Choudhary3, Asad Pervez1, Neil Gupta4, Prashanth Vennalaganti1, Sreekar Vennelaganti3, Alessandro Fugazza5, Alessandro Repici5, Cesare Hassan5, Prateek Sharma6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 2. Hospital Costa del Sol, Marbella, Spain. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Milan, Italy. 6. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA; Department of Gastroenterology, Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proximal colon adenomas can be missed during routine colonoscopy. Use of a cap or hood on the tip of the colonoscope has been shown to improve overall adenoma detection with variable rates. However, it has not been systematically evaluated for detection of proximal colon or right-sided adenomas where the cap may have maximum impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) on right-sided ADRs (r-ADRs) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases as well as secondary sources (bibliographic review of selected articles and major GI proceedings) were searched through October 1, 2016. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of r-ADR. Detection of flat adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), and number of right-sided adenomas per patient were also assessed. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models. RESULTS: We screened 686 records and analyzed data from 4 studies (CC group, 2546 patients; SC group, 2547 patients) that met criteria for determination of r-ADRs, whereas 6 studies (CC group, 3159 patients; SC group, 3137 patients) were analyzed to estimate right-sided adenomas per patient. r-ADR was significantly higher with CC compared with SC (23% vs 17%; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.05; I2 = 79%; P = .01). CC also improved detection rates of flat adenoma (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.20; P < .01) and SSA/P (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74; P = .04). The total number of right-sided adenomas (CC: 1428 [60%] vs SC: 1127 [58%]) and number of right-sided adenomas per patient (CC, .71 ± .5, vs SC, .65 ± .62 [mean ± standard deviation]) were numerically higher for CC but were not statistically significant (P = .43). Approximately 17 CCs would be required to detect an additional patient with right-sided adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CC significantly improves the proximal colon ADR. In addition, flat adenoma and serrated colonic lesion detection rates are also significantly higher as compared with SC.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Proximal colon adenomas can be missed during routine colonoscopy. Use of a cap or hood on the tip of the colonoscope has been shown to improve overall adenoma detection with variable rates. However, it has not been systematically evaluated for detection of proximal colon or right-sided adenomas where the cap may have maximum impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR). Our aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CC) on right-sided ADRs (r-ADRs) compared with standard colonoscopy (SC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases as well as secondary sources (bibliographic review of selected articles and major GI proceedings) were searched through October 1, 2016. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of r-ADR. Detection of flat adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P), and number of right-sided adenomas per patient were also assessed. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models. RESULTS: We screened 686 records and analyzed data from 4 studies (CC group, 2546 patients; SC group, 2547 patients) that met criteria for determination of r-ADRs, whereas 6 studies (CC group, 3159 patients; SC group, 3137 patients) were analyzed to estimate right-sided adenomas per patient. r-ADR was significantly higher with CC compared with SC (23% vs 17%; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.05; I2 = 79%; P = .01). CC also improved detection rates of flat adenoma (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.20; P < .01) and SSA/P (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.74; P = .04). The total number of right-sided adenomas (CC: 1428 [60%] vs SC: 1127 [58%]) and number of right-sided adenomas per patient (CC, .71 ± .5, vs SC, .65 ± .62 [mean ± standard deviation]) were numerically higher for CC but were not statistically significant (P = .43). Approximately 17 CCs would be required to detect an additional patient with right-sided adenoma. CONCLUSIONS: Use of CC significantly improves the proximal colon ADR. In addition, flat adenoma and serrated colonic lesion detection rates are also significantly higher as compared with SC.
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: Martin Buerger; Philipp Kasper; Gabriel Allo; Johannes Gillessen; Christoph Schramm Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Muhammad Aziz; Sachit Sharma; Rawish Fatima; Wade Lee-Smith; Thomas Sodeman; Ali Nawras; Douglas G Adler Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-02-14