Madhav Desai1, Mohammad Bilal2, Nour Hamade1, Venkata Subhash Gorrepati3, Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar1, Ramprasad Jegadeesan1, Neil Gupta4, Pradeep Bhandari5, Alessandro Repici6, Cesare Hassan6, Prateek Sharma1. 1. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 2. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, Galveston, Texas, USA. 3. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. 4. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA. 5. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom. 6. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Right-sided lesions are often missed during standard colonoscopy (SC). A second forward-view examination or retroflexion in the right side of the colon have both been proposed as techniques to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right side of the colon. Comparative data on examining the right side of the colon with a second forward view or retroflexion is not known in a pooled analysis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the yield of a second forward view compared with retroflexion examination for the detection of right-sided adenomas. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Only full-length published articles that provided information on adenoma detection and miss rates during either a second forward view or retroflexed view of the right side of the colon after the initial standard forward withdrawal (SC) were included. The following outcomes were assessed: comparison of adenoma miss rate (AMR) for second forward view versus retroflexion after SC, AMR of SC compared with second forward view, AMR of SC compared with retroflexion, and right-sided adenoma detection with second forward view and retroflexion. Pooled rates were reported as risk difference or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a P value <.05 indicating statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager v5.3. RESULTS: We identified 4 studies with 1882 patients who underwent a second forward view of the right side of the colon after an initial SC. The average age of the patients was 58.3 years. Data on right-sided ADR were available from all 4 studies for the second forward view; however, only 2 of the studies provided information on right-sided ADR with retroflexion. The pooled estimate of AMR of a single SC was 13.3% (95% CI, 6.6%-20%) compared with a second forward-view examination (n = 4), whereas it was 8.1% (3.7%-12.5%) compared with a retroflexion examination (n = 3). However, when the second forward view was compared with retroflexion in terms of AMR from an analysis of 3 eligible studies, there was no statistically significant difference (7.3% vs 6.3%; pooled OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.61; P = .21). Second forward view of the right side of the colon increased the right-sided ADR by 10% (n = 4; second forward view vs SC, 33.6% vs 26.7%) with a pooled risk difference of 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15; P < .01). Retroflexion increased the right-sided ADR by 6% (n = 3; retroflexion vs SC, 28.4% vs 22.7%) with a pooled risk difference of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03-0.09; P < 01). CONCLUSION: After SC withdrawal, a second forward view and retroflexed view of the right side of the colon are both associated with improvement in ADR. One of these techniques should be considered during SC to increase ADR and to improve the quality of colonoscopy.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Right-sided lesions are often missed during standard colonoscopy (SC). A second forward-view examination or retroflexion in the right side of the colon have both been proposed as techniques to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right side of the colon. Comparative data on examining the right side of the colon with a second forward view or retroflexion is not known in a pooled analysis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the yield of a second forward view compared with retroflexion examination for the detection of right-sided adenomas. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Only full-length published articles that provided information on adenoma detection and miss rates during either a second forward view or retroflexed view of the right side of the colon after the initial standard forward withdrawal (SC) were included. The following outcomes were assessed: comparison of adenoma miss rate (AMR) for second forward view versus retroflexion after SC, AMR of SC compared with second forward view, AMR of SC compared with retroflexion, and right-sided adenoma detection with second forward view and retroflexion. Pooled rates were reported as risk difference or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a P value <.05 indicating statistical significance. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager v5.3. RESULTS: We identified 4 studies with 1882 patients who underwent a second forward view of the right side of the colon after an initial SC. The average age of the patients was 58.3 years. Data on right-sided ADR were available from all 4 studies for the second forward view; however, only 2 of the studies provided information on right-sided ADR with retroflexion. The pooled estimate of AMR of a single SC was 13.3% (95% CI, 6.6%-20%) compared with a second forward-view examination (n = 4), whereas it was 8.1% (3.7%-12.5%) compared with a retroflexion examination (n = 3). However, when the second forward view was compared with retroflexion in terms of AMR from an analysis of 3 eligible studies, there was no statistically significant difference (7.3% vs 6.3%; pooled OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.61; P = .21). Second forward view of the right side of the colon increased the right-sided ADR by 10% (n = 4; second forward view vs SC, 33.6% vs 26.7%) with a pooled risk difference of 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15; P < .01). Retroflexion increased the right-sided ADR by 6% (n = 3; retroflexion vs SC, 28.4% vs 22.7%) with a pooled risk difference of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03-0.09; P < 01). CONCLUSION: After SC withdrawal, a second forward view and retroflexed view of the right side of the colon are both associated with improvement in ADR. One of these techniques should be considered during SC to increase ADR and to improve the quality of colonoscopy.
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: Muhammad Aziz; Hossein Haghbin; Manesh Kumar Gangwani; Sachit Sharma; Yusuf Nawras; Zubair Khan; Saurabh Chandan; Babu P Mohan; Wade Lee-Smith; Ali Nawras Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-01-01
Authors: Nauzer Forbes; Robert J Hilsden; Yibing Ruan; Abbey E Poirier; Dylan E O'Sullivan; Kyla M Craig; Diana Kerrison; Darren R Brenner; Steven J Heitman Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-10-25
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
Authors: Rajesh N Keswani; Charles J Kahi; Mark Benson; Andrew J Gawron; Tonya R Kaltenbach; Rena H Yadlapati; Dyanna L Gregory; Anna Duloy Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 3.067