Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection : A randomised controlled clinical trial
© 2020 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology..
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR.
METHODS: Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status.
RESULTS: A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection.
CONCLUSION: The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 May;9(4):425-426. - PMID 33979030 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:9 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
United European gastroenterology journal - 9(2021), 4 vom: 01. Mai, Seite 443-450 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Floer, Martin [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Adenoma detection rate |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 18.01.2022 Date Revised 18.01.2022 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 May;9(4):425-426. - PMID 33979030 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1177/2050640620982952 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM319138313 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM319138313 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225170821.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1177/2050640620982952 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1063.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM319138313 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33349200 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Floer, Martin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection |b A randomised controlled clinical trial |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 18.01.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.01.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 May;9(4):425-426. - PMID 33979030 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2020 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three-armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head-to-head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post-colonic resection status | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post-polypectomy follow-up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Multicenter Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Endocuff | |
| 650 | 4 | |a adenoma detection rate | |
| 650 | 4 | |a colon cancer | |
| 650 | 4 | |a colonoscopy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a screening | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tschaikowski, Laura |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schepke, Michael |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kempinski, Radoslaw |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Neubauer, Katarzyna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Poniewierka, Elzbieta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kunsch, Steffen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ameis, Detlev |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Heinzow, Hauke Sebastian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Auer, Agneta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schmidt, Hartmut H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ellenrieder, Volker |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Meister, Tobias |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t United European gastroenterology journal |d 2013 |g 9(2021), 4 vom: 01. Mai, Seite 443-450 |w (DE-627)NLM237284804 |x 2050-6414 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2021 |g number:4 |g day:01 |g month:05 |g pages:443-450 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050640620982952 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2021 |e 4 |b 01 |c 05 |h 443-450 | ||