Feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope for the detection of colorectal lesionsTRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Multi-Center Cohort Study NTR 4536 at trialregister.nl
submitted 27 March 2017
accepted after revision 09 July 2017
13 November 2017 (eFirst)
Background and study aims The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of conventional colonoscopy can still be improved. We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study to assess the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope, which offers a 235° view obtained from a forward-viewing and two lateral backward-viewing lenses incorporated into one image.
Patients and methods The study was performed between November 2015 and June 2016. EWAVE colonoscopy was performed in patients with an increased risk of colorectal cancer by experienced and EWAVE-trained endoscopists (≥ 500 colonoscopies, ≥ 10 with the EWAVE system).
Results A total of 193 patients underwent EWAVE colonoscopy. The cecal intubation rate was 97.4 %. EWAVE colonoscopy had a polyp detection rate (PDR) of 61.1 % (118 /193), ADR of 39.9 % (77 /193), and advanced ADR of 13.5 % (26 /193). No adverse events occurred.
Conclusions EWAVE colonoscopy is feasible and safe. The ADR appears comparable to those achieved with conventional colonoscopes in similar patient populations. To further elucidate the additional benefits of wide-angle-view colonoscopes, randomized trials would be required.
- 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. NEJM 2012; 366: 687-696
- 2 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J. et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
- 3 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM. et al. Interval cancers after negative colonoscopy: population-based case-control study. Gut 2012; 61: 1576-1582
- 4 Dik VK, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 2200-2211
- 5 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Oka S. et al. Feasibility of a novel colonoscope with extra-wide angle of view: a clinical study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 444-448
- 6 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
- 7 Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142
- 8 Pellise M, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Cardenas A. et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1062-1068
- 9 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
- 10 Hassan C, Senore C, Radaelli F. et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311906.
- 11 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
- 12 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ. et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
- 13 Belderbos TD, Grobbee EJ, van Oijen MG. et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 703-709
- 14 le Clercq CM, Mooi RJ, Winkens B. et al. Temporal trends and variability of colonoscopy performance in a gastroenterology practice. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 248-255
- 15 Chin M, Karnes W, Jamal MM. et al. Use of the Endocuff during routine colonoscopy examination improves adenoma detection: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 9642-9649