These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Endoscopic cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy in adenoma detection: randomized tandem study-DEtection in Tandem Endocuff Cap Trial (DETECT).
    Author: Rameshshanker R, Tsiamoulos Z, Wilson A, Rajendran A, Bassett P, Tekkis P, Saunders BP.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2020 Apr; 91(4):894-904.e1. PubMed ID: 31836474.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma miss rate during colonoscopy is directly linked to risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. One of the reasons for missed adenomas is poor visualization of proximal folds during standard colonoscopy withdrawal. Disposable distal attachments such as the plastic cap and Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) that hold back folds appear to improve adenoma detection. The primary aim of this study was to compare adenoma detection rates between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC). METHODS: This is a randomized, single-center, tandem colonoscopy trial performed by the same endoscopists on the same day, first with Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) followed by cap or vice versa. All procedures were performed by 3 experienced gastroenterology fellows. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients were recruited. Seventy-eight (50.6%) had CAC as their first procedure. Mean patient age was 61 years (male-to-female ratio, 1:1). Adenoma detection rate was significantly higher for EAC when compared to CAC (53% vs 26%, P = .001). Polyp miss rate was significantly lower in EAC (8.4%) compared with CAC (26.1%, P < .001) as was adenoma miss rate (EAC vs CAC, 6%, vs 19%; P = .002) and diminutive adenoma (<5 mm) miss rate in the EAC group (1.8% vs 19.6%, P < .001). However, there was no significant differences in the miss rates for small adenomas (5-9 mm) (3.7% vs 2.9%, P = .69) or adenomas 10 mm or larger (1.6% vs 2.6%, P = .98 ). The mean number of adenomas per procedure was significantly higher with EAC compared with CAC (1.5 vs .8, P < .001). Cecal intubation time was significantly shorter with EAC than CAC (median 6 vs 7 minutes, P = .01). Conversely, withdrawal time (median 10 vs 8 minutes, P = .01) was significantly longer in EAC. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, tandem study demonstrates that EAC has a significantly higher adenoma detection rate and lower adenoma miss rate than CAC. Although insertion times were shorter with EAC, procedures were slightly more uncomfortable, and the cuff had to be removed in a small number of cases. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03254498.).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]