Calita Mihaela, Popa Petrica, Cherciu Harbiyeli Irina Florina, Iordache Sevastita, Ciocalteu Adriana, Filip Maria Monalisa, Saftoiu Adrian
Department of Gastroenterology, Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania.
Curr Health Sci J. 2021 Jan-Mar;47(1):33-41. doi: 10.12865/CHSJ.47.01.06. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
Standard colonoscopy fails to visualize the entire colon mucosa and consequently a significant amount of polyps are still being missed. New device, such as EndoCuff, have been developed to improve mucosal visualisation, hence the quality in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with standard colonoscopy by taking into consideration several quality indicators.
In this study, 965 adults ≥ 18 years referred for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups. The main statistical investigation compared the difference between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs. standard colonoscopy (SC) in the detection of colonic polyps and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The second inquiry sought to compare experienced vs. recently trained and female vs. male operators.
The ADR was higher for EC than for SC (37.50% vs. 26.64%). Regarding the mean number of detected polyps per procedure (MPP), the result was statistically significant when generally comparing the EC vs. SC (p=0.0009). There were no differences in MPP between EC and SC for recently trained endoscopists (p=0.7446), while a significant difference for experienced doctors (p=0,0020) was noted. A significant difference was observed between female doctors and male doctors only when using SC. EC was more helpful for female doctors when assessing MPP (p=0.0118). No serious adverse events related to EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy was noted.
EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to be safe and may bring benefits for improving the polyp/adenoma detection rates in regard to missed lesions, usually located in blind areas.
标准结肠镜检查无法观察到整个结肠黏膜，因此仍有大量息肉被漏诊。诸如EndoCuff等新设备已被开发出来，以改善黏膜可视化，从而提高结肠镜检查的质量。本研究的目的是通过考虑几个质量指标，评估EndoCuff辅助结肠镜检查与标准结肠镜检查相比的诊断率。
在本研究中，965名年龄≥18岁接受结肠镜检查的成年人被随机分为两组。主要统计调查比较了EndoCuff辅助结肠镜检查（EC）与标准结肠镜检查（SC）在结肠息肉检测和腺瘤检出率（ADR）方面的差异。第二项调查旨在比较经验丰富的与最近培训的操作人员以及女性与男性操作人员。
EC组的ADR高于SC组（37.50%对26.64%）。关于每次检查发现的息肉平均数量（MPP），总体比较EC与SC时结果具有统计学意义（p=0.0009）。对于最近培训的内镜医师，EC与SC的MPP没有差异（p=0.7446），而经验丰富的医生有显著差异（p=0.0020）。仅在使用SC时，女性医生和男性医生之间存在显著差异。在评估MPP时，EC对女性医生更有帮助（p=0.0118）。未发现与EndoCuff辅助结肠镜检查相关的严重不良事件。
EndoCuff辅助结肠镜检查似乎是安全的，并且在提高通常位于盲区的漏诊病变的息肉/腺瘤检出率方面可能带来益处。
