内镜辅助结肠镜检查在常规结直肠癌筛查中识别无梗锯齿状息肉和腺瘤:一项回顾性队列研究

IF 1.7 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
JGH Open Pub Date : 2025-05-14 DOI:10.1002/jgh3.70173
Ammad Javaid Chaudhary, Muhammad Saad Faisal, Abdullah Sohail, Hope Baldwin, Kevin Harris, Muhammad Shahzil, Muhammad Salman Faisal, Avi Toiv, Keith Mullins, Suraj Suresh
{"title":"内镜辅助结肠镜检查在常规结直肠癌筛查中识别无梗锯齿状息肉和腺瘤:一项回顾性队列研究","authors":"Ammad Javaid Chaudhary,&nbsp;Muhammad Saad Faisal,&nbsp;Abdullah Sohail,&nbsp;Hope Baldwin,&nbsp;Kevin Harris,&nbsp;Muhammad Shahzil,&nbsp;Muhammad Salman Faisal,&nbsp;Avi Toiv,&nbsp;Keith Mullins,&nbsp;Suraj Suresh","doi":"10.1002/jgh3.70173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Polyps located in less accessible areas of the colon, such as inner curves of flexures, are often difficult to visualize. Colonoscope attachments such as the Endocuff have been developed to improve the visualization of these polyps. We aimed to assess the utility of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) in the detection of tubular adenomas and sessile serrated polyps (SSP) compared to conventional colonoscopy during routine colorectal cancer screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent colorectal cancer screening with either conventional colonoscopy or EAC between November 2022 and March 2023. The primary outcomes were SSP and tubular adenoma detection rates. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time, cecal intubation time, and ileal intubation rates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 435 patients included, 189 (43%) underwent EAC, and 246 (57%) underwent conventional colonoscopy. The mean ± standard deviation number of polyps detected was 1.7 ± 2.2, the mean procedure time was 18.7 ± 7.5 min, and the mean cecal intubation time was 4.4 ± 3.3 min, with no significant differences between groups. A smaller proportion of patients in the EAC group had successful ileal intubation (14% vs. 55%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). The tubular adenoma detection rate was similar between EAC and conventional colonoscopy (41% vs. 39%; <i>p</i> = 0.70), but the SSP detection rate was significantly higher with EAC (16% vs. 8.5%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>EAC may enhance the detection of difficult-to-visualize SSPs during screening colonoscopies without affecting overall procedure time. However, physicians should consider the examination indication when selecting EAC, as ileal intubation may be more challenging.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45861,"journal":{"name":"JGH Open","volume":"9 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgh3.70173","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endocuff-Assisted Colonoscopy for Identifying Sessile Serrated Polyps and Adenomas During Routine Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"Ammad Javaid Chaudhary,&nbsp;Muhammad Saad Faisal,&nbsp;Abdullah Sohail,&nbsp;Hope Baldwin,&nbsp;Kevin Harris,&nbsp;Muhammad Shahzil,&nbsp;Muhammad Salman Faisal,&nbsp;Avi Toiv,&nbsp;Keith Mullins,&nbsp;Suraj Suresh\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgh3.70173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>Polyps located in less accessible areas of the colon, such as inner curves of flexures, are often difficult to visualize. Colonoscope attachments such as the Endocuff have been developed to improve the visualization of these polyps. We aimed to assess the utility of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) in the detection of tubular adenomas and sessile serrated polyps (SSP) compared to conventional colonoscopy during routine colorectal cancer screening.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patients and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent colorectal cancer screening with either conventional colonoscopy or EAC between November 2022 and March 2023. The primary outcomes were SSP and tubular adenoma detection rates. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time, cecal intubation time, and ileal intubation rates.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of the 435 patients included, 189 (43%) underwent EAC, and 246 (57%) underwent conventional colonoscopy. The mean ± standard deviation number of polyps detected was 1.7 ± 2.2, the mean procedure time was 18.7 ± 7.5 min, and the mean cecal intubation time was 4.4 ± 3.3 min, with no significant differences between groups. A smaller proportion of patients in the EAC group had successful ileal intubation (14% vs. 55%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). The tubular adenoma detection rate was similar between EAC and conventional colonoscopy (41% vs. 39%; <i>p</i> = 0.70), but the SSP detection rate was significantly higher with EAC (16% vs. 8.5%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>EAC may enhance the detection of difficult-to-visualize SSPs during screening colonoscopies without affecting overall procedure time. However, physicians should consider the examination indication when selecting EAC, as ileal intubation may be more challenging.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JGH Open\",\"volume\":\"9 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgh3.70173\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JGH Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.70173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JGH Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.70173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的位于结肠不易接近区域的息肉,如结肠弯曲的内部曲线,通常难以可视化。诸如endocff之类的结肠镜附件已经被开发出来,以改善这些息肉的可视化。我们的目的是评估在常规结直肠癌筛查中,与传统结肠镜相比,endocff辅助结肠镜(EAC)在检测管状腺瘤和无梗锯齿状息肉(SSP)方面的效用。患者和方法本回顾性队列研究纳入了2022年11月至2023年3月期间接受常规结肠镜检查或EAC筛查的结直肠癌患者。主要结果是SSP和管状腺瘤的检出率。次要结果包括总手术时间、盲肠插管时间和回肠插管率。结果纳入的435例患者中,189例(43%)行EAC, 246例(57%)行常规结肠镜检查。检测到息肉的平均±标准差数为1.7±2.2个,平均手术时间为18.7±7.5 min,平均盲肠插管时间为4.4±3.3 min,组间差异无统计学意义。EAC组中成功进行回肠插管的患者比例较小(14%对55%;p < 0.01)。管状腺瘤检出率EAC与常规结肠镜相似(41% vs 39%;p = 0.70),但SSP检出率显著高于EAC(16%比8.5%;p < 0.01)。结论EAC可提高结肠镜筛查中难以观察的ssp的检出率,但不影响整个手术时间。然而,医生在选择EAC时应考虑检查指征,因为回肠插管可能更具挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endocuff-Assisted Colonoscopy for Identifying Sessile Serrated Polyps and Adenomas During Routine Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Aims

Polyps located in less accessible areas of the colon, such as inner curves of flexures, are often difficult to visualize. Colonoscope attachments such as the Endocuff have been developed to improve the visualization of these polyps. We aimed to assess the utility of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) in the detection of tubular adenomas and sessile serrated polyps (SSP) compared to conventional colonoscopy during routine colorectal cancer screening.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent colorectal cancer screening with either conventional colonoscopy or EAC between November 2022 and March 2023. The primary outcomes were SSP and tubular adenoma detection rates. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time, cecal intubation time, and ileal intubation rates.

Results

Of the 435 patients included, 189 (43%) underwent EAC, and 246 (57%) underwent conventional colonoscopy. The mean ± standard deviation number of polyps detected was 1.7 ± 2.2, the mean procedure time was 18.7 ± 7.5 min, and the mean cecal intubation time was 4.4 ± 3.3 min, with no significant differences between groups. A smaller proportion of patients in the EAC group had successful ileal intubation (14% vs. 55%; p < 0.01). The tubular adenoma detection rate was similar between EAC and conventional colonoscopy (41% vs. 39%; p = 0.70), but the SSP detection rate was significantly higher with EAC (16% vs. 8.5%; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

EAC may enhance the detection of difficult-to-visualize SSPs during screening colonoscopies without affecting overall procedure time. However, physicians should consider the examination indication when selecting EAC, as ileal intubation may be more challenging.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JGH Open
JGH Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信