Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2024; 12(10): E1230-E1236
DOI: 10.1055/a-2422-9502
Original article

A novel colonoscope with an extra-wide field of view increases polyp detection rate compared with standard colonoscope: Prospective model-based trial

Horst Neuhaus
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Interdisciplinary Care Clinic, Duesseldorf, Germany
,
Tanja Nowak 
2   Hamburg, Medical Affairs, Hamburg, Germany
,
Arthur Schmidt
3   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endocrinology, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN15000)
› Author Affiliations
Supported by: PENTAX Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
› Further Information
Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy, the gold standard for early detection of colorectal cancer, may miss polyps especially those hidden behind folds. This prospective study compared polyp detection and performance of a novel colonoscope with extra-wide field of view (EFOV) of 230 degrees (partially retrograde) to a standard colonoscope (SC, 170 degrees) in a colon model.

Patients and methods A 3D printed colon model was used featuring 12 polyps placed throughout different colon segments, with several located on the proximal side of haustral folds. Endoscopists were instructed to identify polyps, first inserting the SC immediately followed by the EFOV device, and to place a snare to simulate a polypectomy. A standardized survey was used to record operator impressions.

Results Twenty-nine experienced endoscopists participated in this study. On average, 5.3 vs 9.6 polyps were detected with the standard and EFOV colonoscopes, respectively (P < 0.001). Five of 29 operators (17.2%) detected all 12 polyps with the EFOV device, whereas no operator detected all polyps with the SC. The success rate for snare placement was 100% for both endoscopes with similar times (mean of 14 vs 15 seconds for SC and EFOV, respectively). EFOV handling and optical performance were rated as equally good or better by all endoscopists.

Conclusions Use of a colonoscope with novel optics significantly improved polyp detection compared with a standard colonoscope in this non-randomized model-based study, with favorable performance and usability ratings for the EFOV instrument. Clinical studies are needed to confirm these encouraging preliminary results.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - CRC screening - Colorectal cancer


Publication History

Received: 13 July 2024

Accepted after revision: 26 September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 October 2024

Article published online:
28 October 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bretthauer M, Løberg M, Wieszcy P. et al. Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death. N Engl J Med 2022; 387: 1547-1556
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ. et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2021; 325: 1965-1977
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P. et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1661-1674.e11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2017; 5: 309-334
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Gralnek IM, Suissa A, Domanov S. Safety and efficacy of a novel balloon colonoscope: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 883-887
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Shirin H, Shpak B, Epshtein J. et al. G-EYE colonoscopy is superior to standard colonoscopy for increasing adenoma detection rate: an international randomized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Konda V, Chauhan SS. ASGE Technology Committee. et al. Endoscopes and devices to improve colon polyp detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1122-1129
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A. et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z. et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Denzer U, Beilenhoff U, Eickhoff A. et al. S2k guideline: quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy, AWMF registry no. 021–022. Z Gastroenterol 2015; 12: E1-E227
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Rikemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hamilton MA, Collings BJ. Determining the appropriate sample size for nonparametric tests for location shift. Technometrics 1991; 33: 327-337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hassan C. Real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176: 1209-1220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Floer M, Tschaikowski L, Schepke M. et al. Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2021; 9: 443-450
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gralnek IM, Carr-Lock DL, Segol O. et al. Comparison of standard forward-viewing mode versus ultrawide-viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 472-479
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hasan N, Gross SA, Gralnek IM. et al. A novel balloon colonoscope detects significantly more simulated polyps than a standard colonoscope in a colon model. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1135-1140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T. et al. A novel extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 480-483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar