BACKGROUND AND AIM: Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a new endoscopic platform allowing a panoramic 330 degree view of the colon, but evidence of its superiority over standard colonoscopy is still lacking. Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of full-spectrum endoscopy with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review until May 2017, we identified eight randomized-controlled trials. Primary outcomes were polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, while cecal intubation time and total colonoscopy time were secondary outcomes. Direct meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: No difference in terms of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate was found (risk ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.12, P = 0.96, and 1.05, 0.94-1.17, P = 0.40, respectively). Adenoma miss rate resulted significantly in favor of full-spectrum endoscopy (risk ratio: 0.35, 0.25-0.48, P < 0.01), although the difference was not significant for greater (>5 mm) and pedunculated lesions (risk ratio: 0.38, 0.09-1.60, P = 0.19, and risk ratio: 0.15, 0.01-3.00, P = 0.21, respectively). Cecal intubation time was not different between the two techniques (mean standardized difference: 0.22 min, -1.18 to 1.62, P = 0.76), while total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter when adopting full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference: -2.60, -4.60 to -0.61, P = 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed all the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Full-spectrum endoscopy appears as a promising and reliable technology able to significantly decrease the number of adenomas missed and procedural times, while its superiority over standard colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate results is still unclear.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a new endoscopic platform allowing a panoramic 330 degree view of the colon, but evidence of its superiority over standard colonoscopy is still lacking. Our study is the first meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of full-spectrum endoscopy with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review until May 2017, we identified eight randomized-controlled trials. Primary outcomes were polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, while cecal intubation time and total colonoscopy time were secondary outcomes. Direct meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: No difference in terms of polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate was found (risk ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.12, P = 0.96, and 1.05, 0.94-1.17, P = 0.40, respectively). Adenoma miss rate resulted significantly in favor of full-spectrum endoscopy (risk ratio: 0.35, 0.25-0.48, P < 0.01), although the difference was not significant for greater (>5 mm) and pedunculated lesions (risk ratio: 0.38, 0.09-1.60, P = 0.19, and risk ratio: 0.15, 0.01-3.00, P = 0.21, respectively). Cecal intubation time was not different between the two techniques (mean standardized difference: 0.22 min, -1.18 to 1.62, P = 0.76), while total colonoscopy time was significantly shorter when adopting full-spectrum endoscopy (mean difference: -2.60, -4.60 to -0.61, P = 0.01). Sensitivity analysis confirmed all the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Full-spectrum endoscopy appears as a promising and reliable technology able to significantly decrease the number of adenomas missed and procedural times, while its superiority over standard colonoscopy in terms of adenoma detection rate results is still unclear.