Full-spectrum Endoscopy Research Articles

Changes in Adenoma Detection Rate From Full-Spectrum Endoscopy to Standard Forward-Viewing Endoscopy.

The aim was to investigate the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of endoscopists who have used full-spectrum endoscopy (Fuse) for 3 years and revert back to traditional forward-viewing endoscopes (R-TFV) at an ambulatory surgical center. Traditional forward viewing (TFV) endoscopes have 1 camera and provide an angle of view of 140 to 170 degrees, whereas Fuse provides a 330 degrees view through the addition of 2 side cameras. It has previously been reported that Fuse increased the ADR by 5.4% when compared with previous rates using TFV. Fuse is no longer commercially available. The ADR of endoscopists who revert back to TFV is unknown. We conducted a retrospective analysis of data examining the ADR from average risk screening colonoscopies at a 5-room ambulatory surgical center where endoscopists transitioned from TFV to Fuse in April 2014 and then reverted back to TFV in 2016. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR for advanced and right-sided adenomas. A total of 6110 procedures were reviewed. The ADR was 23.70% for TFV, 29.02% for Fuse and 28.88% for R-TFV. The ADR for advanced adenomas was 3.8% for TFV, 6.0% for Fuse and 7.3% for R-TFV. The ADR for right-sided adenomas was 13.0% for TFV, 16.7% for Fuse and 16.0% for R-TFV. The results for all 3 categories showed a statistical difference between TFV and Fuse as well as between TFV and R-TFV. There were no statistical differences between the ADR of Fuse compared with R-TFV. During R-TFV, endoscopists are able to maintain their increased ability to detect adenomas. This would suggest that there was a change in behavior in endoscopists using Fuse that was durable.

WEO Newsletter.

WEO Newsletter.

Strengths and Weaknesses of an Artificial Intelligence Polyp Detection Program as Assessed by a High-Detecting Endoscopist

Strengths and Weaknesses of an Artificial Intelligence Polyp Detection Program as Assessed by a High-Detecting Endoscopist

Computer-aided detection versus advanced imaging for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Computer-aided detection (CADe) techniques based on artificial intelligence algorithms can assist endoscopists in detecting colorectal neoplasia. CADe has been associated with an increased adenoma detection rate, a key quality indicator, but the utility of CADe compared with existing advanced imaging techniques and distal attachment devices is unclear. For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to Nov 30, 2020, for randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of the following endoscopic techniques in detecting colorectal neoplasia: CADe, high definition (HD) white-light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, or add-on devices (ie, systems that increase mucosal visualisation, such as full spectrum endoscopy [FUSE] or G-EYE balloon endoscopy). We collected data on adenoma detection rates, sessile serrated lesion detection rates, the proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and withdrawal times. A frequentist framework, random-effects network meta-analysis was done to compare artificial intelligence with chromoendoscopy, increased mucosal visualisation systems, and HD white-light endoscopy (the control group). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for the adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection rate, and proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and calculated mean differences for withdrawal time, with 95% CIs. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 50 randomised controlled trials, comprising 34 445 participants, were included in our main analysis (six trials of CADe, 18 of chromoendoscopy, and 26 of increased mucosal visualisation systems). HD white-light endoscopy was the control technique in all 50 studies. Compared with the control technique, the adenoma detection rate was 7·4% higher with CADe (OR 1·78 [95% CI 1·44-2·18]), 4·4% higher with chromoendoscopy (1·22 [1·08-1·39]), and 4·1% higher with increased mucosal visualisation systems (1·16 [1·04-1·28]). CADe ranked as the superior technique for adenoma detection (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking); cross-comparisons of CADe with other imaging techniques showed a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate with CADe versus increased mucosal visualisation systems (OR 1·54 [95% CI 1·22-1·94]; low certainty of evidence) and with CADe versus chromoendoscopy (1·45 [1·14-1·85]; moderate certainty of evidence). When focusing on large adenomas (≥10 mm) there was a significant increase in the detection of large adenomas only with CADe (OR 1·69 [95% CI 1·10-2·60], moderate certainty of evidence) when compared to HD white-light endoscopy; CADe ranked as the superior strategy for detection of large adenomas. CADe also seemed to be the superior strategy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking), although no significant increase in the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was shown (OR 1·37 [95% CI 0·65-2·88]). No significant difference in withdrawal time was reported for CADe compared with the other techniques. Based on the published literature, detection rates of colorectal neoplasia are higher with CADe than with other techniques such as chromoendoscopy or tools that increase mucosal visualisation, supporting wider incorporation of CADe strategies into community endoscopy services. None.

Comparing endoscopic interventions to improve serrated adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Serrated lesions (sessile serrated adenomas/polyps and traditional serrated adenomas) owing to their subtle appearance and proximal location have a high miss rate. The objective of this study is to compare all the available endoscopic interventions for improving serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR) through a network meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review of the available literature (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and WoS) from inception to 29 November 2019 to identify all the relevant randomized controlled trials. A total of 28 trials with 22 830 patients were included. The studies compared the efficacy of add-on devices (endocap, endocuff, endocuff vision, G-EYE, endorings, AmplifEYE), electronic chromoendoscopy (linked-color imaging, blue laser imaging, narrow band imaging), dye-based chromoendoscopy, full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) and water-based techniques (WBT) with each other or high-definition colonoscopy. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values were calculated. Direct meta-analysis demonstrated superiority for WBT (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.01-1.98), add-on devices (RR: 1.53, CI: 1.13-2.08), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.93, CI: 1.12-3.32) and endocuff vision (RR: 1.87, CI: 1.13-3.11) compared to high-definition colonoscopy. The results were consistent on network meta-analysis with chromoendoscopy as an additional modality for improving SADR (RR: 1.74, CI: 1.03-2.93). In a network meta-analysis, add-on devices (particularly endocuff vision), narrow band imaging, WBT and chromoendoscopy were comparable to each other and improved SADR compared to high-definition colonoscopy.

Usefulness of Full-spectrum Endoscopy for the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.

We determined whether full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) improved the visualization rates of blind spots in a single-center case control study. FUSE provides a 210-degree angle of view with a left side-viewing camera in addition to a forward-viewing camera. FUSE can improve the detectability of blind spots in conventional forward-viewing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), such as the major duodenal papilla (MDP) and the anal side of the pyloric ring. Between April 2016 and May 2017, successful visualization rates of the whole MDP and anal side of the pyloric ring were compared between 103 participants who underwent FUSE and 1045 participants who underwent EGD. Pain and discomfort at insertion and during and after the examination were assessed using a visual analog scale in 38 participants who underwent FUSE with a previous examination history of EGD. The successful visualization rates of MDP and the anal side of the pyloric ring in the FUSE group were significantly higher than those in the conventional EGD group; 83.4% versus 35.1% for MDP (P<0.001) and 86.4% versus 7.1% for the anal side of the pyloric ring (P<0.001), respectively. The visual analog scale were not significantly different between FUSE and previous EGD in a portion of the FUSE group. In addition, the detection rate of the periampullary diverticula was also significantly higher in the FUSE group than that in the conventional EGD group (8.7% vs. 1.6%, P<0.001). This study provides evidence supporting that FUSE is superior to EGD for precise visualization of blind spots in the duodenum.

The impact of full-spectrum endoscopy on pathological lesion detection in different regions of the colon: a randomised, controlled trial

IntroductionColonoscopy is crucial for detecting and localising pathological lesions within the colon. Colonoscopy quality is defined by the caecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate. The newly introduced full-spectrum endoscope (FUSE®) provides a 330° field of view, allowing endoscopists to observe more colonic anatomy. It is intended to increase detection of pathological lesions, especially those situated behind the haustral folds of the bowel. This diagnostic modality should increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR), especially in the right hemicolon. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy of FUSE for detecting pathologic lesions in different colonic regions.Material and methodsThe study enrolled 408 patients who were randomised to either a standard frontal view (SFV) or the novel full-spectrum colonoscopy. Analysis was performed among three broad regions of the colon: right, transverse, and left colon, according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.ResultsFUSE yielded a higher diverticula detection rate (DDR) in the right and middle colon (DDR-R (p < 0.05), DDR-T (p < 0.05), DDR-L (p = 0.862)). ADR (p = 0.761), advanced ADR (aADR) (p = 0.950), and DDR (p = 0.967) in respective regions of the colon were similar between the groups; however, the total number of adenomas detected with FUSE was higher in the right and middle regions of the colon compared with those detected by SFV (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFull-spectrum colonoscopy allows for effective recognition of pathological lesions in the right and middle regions of the colon. Although full-spectrum colonoscopy did not statistically affect ADR, the absolute number of adenomas detected was higher compared with classical endoscopy.

Efficacy of withdrawal time monitoring in adenoma detection with or without the aid of a full-spectrum scope.

Background and study aims Withdrawal time (WT) monitoring and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) have been suggested to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) due to more accurate evaluation of the hidden areas of the colon. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of WT monitoring and FUSE on ADR. Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive outpatients, aged 18 to 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy with unselected indications. In phase 1, endoscopists performed 660 colonoscopies either with standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFVE) (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). In this phase, WTs were measured without endoscopist awareness of being monitored. In phase 2, endoscopists were informed of being monitored and performed additional 660 colonoscopies either with SFVE (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). Results WT was lower in phase 1 compared to phase 2 (SFVE: 269 ± 83 vs. 386 ± 60 sec, P < 0.001; FUSE: 289 ± 97 vs. 403 ± 65 sec, P < 0.001). Use of FUSE increased ADR both in phase 1 (33.0 % vs. 27.3 %, P = 0.127) and in phase 2 (41.8 % vs. 33.6 %, P = 0.037). When endoscopists were aware of being monitored, ADR was higher in SFVE (33.6 % vs. 27.3 %; P = 0.090) and FUSE arms (41.8 % vs. 33.0 %; P = 0.024). Improvement in detection of proximal adenomas was associated with WT monitoring [OR 1.577 (95 % C. I. 1.158 – 2.148); P = 0.004], whereas detection of distal adenomas was associated with use of FUSE [OR 1.320 (95 % C. I. 1.022 – 1.705); P = 0.037]. Conclusions Unmonitored endoscopists have suboptimal WT, which increases when they are monitored. WT monitoring and use of FUSE are two reliable and alternative strategies to increase ADR.

Efficacy of Full-Spectrum Endoscopy to Visualize the Major Duodenal Papilla in Patients with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

Background and Aims: Duodenal cancer is one of the extracolonic malignancies with known mortality in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients. Visualization of the major duodenal papilla (MDP) with a standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is currently insufficient because of the limited field of view. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE), utilizing double imagers located on the front and side of the endoscopic tip, provides a wider field of view up to 245 degrees. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of FUSE in visualizing MDP in patients with FAP. Methods: This study was a single-center retrospective study including 49 FAP patients undergoing surveillance at our institution. EGD was performed by qualified endoscopists using FUSE, and visibility of the MDP was evaluated. All examinations were video-recorded, and the clips for individual patient were edited to forward view images alone (conventional group) and 2-view images of the duodenum (forward and side-view [FUSE group]). Three other qualified external endoscopists independently reviewed the videos and compared the visibility of MDP between the conventional and the FUSE groups. Primary endpoint was the rate of Type 1 visibility (whole area of the papilla) in off-site video reviews. We also assessed MDP visibility on-site as secondary endpoint. Results: The rate of type 1 MDP visibility was significantly higher in the FUSE group than conventional group in both on-site (32.6/100%, p < 0.001) and off-site reviews (8.2, 16.3, 14.3/100, 98, and 100%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: FUSE is recommended in screening and surveillance EGD to better visualize MDP in FAP patients.

Detection of major duodenal papilla using full-spectrum endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the efficiency and safety of full-spectrum endoscopy for detection of major duodenal papilla. Methods Patients underwent painless gastroscopy in Chinese PLA General Hospital from March 2017 to December 2017 were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups according to random number method. The group A underwent conventional gastroscopy, and the group B underwent full-spectrum endoscopy. The detection rate of major duodenal papilla was calculated and compared between the two groups. Results A total of 100 patients were recruited in the study, including 51 in the group A and 49 in the group B. The whole detection rate of major duodenal papilla of the group B was higher than that of the group A [79.59% (39/49) VS 41.18% (21/51), χ2=15.366, P=0.000]. There was no statistical difference on the whole plus partial detection rate of major duodenal papilla between the two groups [100.00% (49/49) VS 92.16% (47/51), χ2=2.221, P=0.136]. All patients completed endoscopy examination succesfully without bleeding, peforation or death. Conclusion With the broad view-field, full-spectrum endoscopy is useful to improve the efficiency and safety in detection of major duodenal papilla. Key words: Endoscopy; Full-spectrum gastroscopy; Major duodenal papilla; Diagnosis

Role of Full-spectrum Endoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Trial.

The aim of this study was to compare a new, full-spectrum endoscope (Fuse; EndoChoice, Alpharetta, GA) to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Colonoscopy, the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer, fails to detect 22% to 28% of polyps, increasing the risk of interval cancer. Endoscopic improvement of the adenoma detection rate decrease interval carcinomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) (330-degree field of view), in a tandem study, has been shown to reduce the adenoma miss rate. Prospective, randomized study of 249 patients in patients referred from the colorectal screening program with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Patients were randomized to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (170 degrees) or to full-spectrum colonoscopy with the Fuse system (330 degrees). Study variables were the adenoma detection rate, the polyp detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per procedure, the lesions detected according to the location, morphology and size, cecal intubation rate, total procedure time, insertion time to the cecum, therapeutic success, and adverse events. The Fuse system did not produce a significantly higher adenoma detection rate than standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (FUSE 73.1% vs. standard colonoscopy 68.1%; P=0.47) but did have a significantly longer insertion time (FUSE 6.2 min vs. standard colonoscopy 4.2 min; P< 0.001). Further analysis failed to reveal any significant difference in polyp/adenoma detection rates by lesion size or colonic section. FUSE did not detect significantly more colorectal neoplasia than forward viewing colonoscopy in a medium-risk CRC screening population with positive FOBT.

Accuracy of the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system for assessment of disease activity in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) compared to high-definition endoscopy

Introduction: Recently, Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) was introduced as a novel colonoscopy platform. In contrast to other endoscopy systems illumination with the FUSE system is achieved by Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) and not by a xenon light source. Currently, the FUSE-system does not provide high-definition imaging yet. In patients with IBD, precise assessment of disease activity (i.e. mucosal healing) is of paramount importance to predict disease outcome and to guide therapy.

Augmented Endoscopy for Surveillance of Colonic Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis.

Considering the high risk of dysplasia and cancer in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], surveillance is advocated. However, international guidelines do not reach a uniform recommendation on the way to perform surveillance. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess the best endoscopic surveillance strategy in colonic IBD. The systematic review was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing white light endoscopy [WLE] and augmented endoscopy [AE] in the detection of dysplasia/neoplasia in colonic IBD. A sub-analysis between dye-spray chromoendoscopy [DCE], narrow-band imaging [NBI], I-SCAN, full-spectrum endoscopy [FUSE], and auto-fluorescence imaging [AFI] was also performed. Furthermore, a meta-regression and a network meta-analysis were also performed. A total of 27 studies [6167 IBD patients with 2024 dysplastic lesions] met the inclusion criteria. There was no publication bias. AE showed a higher likelihood of detecting dysplasia than WLE (19.3% vs 8.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.036), with an incremental yield [IY] of 10.8%. DCE [OR = 2.605] and AFI [OR = 3.055] had higher likelihood of detecting dysplasia than WLE; otherwise, I-SCAN [OR = 1.096], NBI [OR = 0.650], and FUSE [OR = 1.118] were not superior to WLE. Dysplasia was found in 1256/7267 targeted biopsies [17.3%] and in 363/110 040 random biopsies [0.33%] [OR = 66.559, IY = 16.9%]. Meta-regression found no variable impacting on the efficacy of AE techniques. Network meta-analysis identified a significant superiority of DCE to WLE in detecting dysplasia [OR 2.12], but no other single technique was found to be superior to all others in dysplasia detection. DCE was associated with higher likelihood of discovering dysplastic lesions than WLE. Chromoendoscopy is the best supported endoscopic technique for IBD surveillance.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection. We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE. Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient. In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Meta-analysis indicates that add-on devices and new endoscopes reduce colonoscopy adenoma miss rate.

A variety of add-on devices and new-generation endoscopes have the potential to detect lesions 'hidden' behind colonic folds. We measured the effect of these new modalities on colonoscopy's lesions miss rates by a meta-analysis of data from individual studies. We performed literature searches in Medline and Cochrane Library for back-to-back randomized-controlled trials evaluating colonoscope add-on devices and new endoscopes in terms of lesions miss rates. The effect size on study outcomes is shown as relative risk (95% confidence interval). We identified nine tandem studies with 1594 patients: seven evaluating add-on devices (one with cap, two with Endocuff, one with Endorings, one with Third-Eye Retroscope, two with G-EYE endoscope) and two evaluating the full-spectrum endoscopy system (FUSE) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). Overall, adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly lower with add-on devices/FUSE [0.33 (0.22-0.50), P<0.00001] compared with CC, the effect being similar among the add-on devices [0.35 (0.22-0.57), P<0.0001] and the FUSE [0.26 (0.15-0.46), P<0.00001] studies, respectively. Advanced AMR and polyp miss rate (PMR) were also significantly lower using add-on devices/FUSE [0.30 (0.21-0.44), P<0.0001 and 0.31 (0.13-0.79), P=0.01, respectively]. Use of add-on devices/FUSE scope was associated with significantly lower AMR and PMR in the proximal colon and it was associated with shortening of the colonoscopy surveillance interval. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that AMR, advanced AMR, and PMR are significantly lower using add-on to colonoscope devices and the full-spectrum endoscopy systems compared with CC. Heterogeneity among the included studies and the small number of detected advanced adenomas call for cautious interpretation of the results.

Effect of Full-Spectrum Endoscopy System on Adenoma Miss Rate

Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) is a colonoscopy system with a wider viewing angle (330°) than conventional colonoscopes (range, 140°–170°). Previous

New-generation full-spectrum endoscopy versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy: a multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy trial (J-FUSE Study)

Although colonoscopy is the criterion standard for detection of colorectal adenomas, some adenomas are missed. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) allows for observation with a 330-degree angle of view, which is expected to decrease the miss rate. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the superiority of FUSE over standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (SFVC) for detection of adenomas; we therefore compared new-generation FUSE and SFVC regarding colorectal adenoma miss rate (AMR) in this, the first reported randomized control trial using new-generation FUSE. We enrolled individuals aged 40 to 75 years who had been referred for screening, surveillance, fecal occult blood test positivity, or symptoms in a prospective randomized trial of tandem colonoscopy in 8 institutions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated stratified randomization. Neither the endoscopists nor patients were blinded to the allocation. The primary endpoint was AMR per patient (AMR-PP). We enrolled 345 patients and included 319 in the per-protocol analyses. AMR-PP was significantly lower with FUSE (11.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-15.4%) than with SFVC (22.9%; 95% CI, 17.5%-28.3%; P< .001). AMR-PP for lesions≤5mm in size was significantly lower with FUSE (10.4%; 95% CI, 6.5%-14.3%) than with SFVC (20.0%; 95% CI, 14.4%-25.6%; P= .0057). Furthermore, AMR-PP in the ascending colon was significantly lower with FUSE (4.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-7.2%) than with SFVC (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-15.1%; P= .0212). FUSE is superior to SFVC regarding both AMR-PP and AMR; additionally, AMR-PP is both significantly lower with FUSE than SFVC for lesions≤5mm in size and in the ascending colon. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000020448.).

Modern Endoscopic Imaging in Diagnosis and Surveillance of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.

Endoscopy remains the most important diagnostic and monitoring modality in the management of inflammatory bowel disease. Advances in imaging have progressively added new tools into the armamentarium of endoscopists with the goal of more accurate, sensitive, and accessible visual diagnoses for the benefit of patients with gastrointestinal diseases. Here, we review the relevant literature regarding commonly used endoscopic techniques (dye-based and digital chromoendoscopy, high-definition endoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endosonography), as well as advanced and experimental technologies (full-spectrum endoscopy, endocytoscopy, autofluorescence, laser endoscopy, and endomicroscopy, including molecular imaging), applicable to inflammatory bowel diseases and emerging for implementation into everyday practice. Additionally, we discuss future directions and techniques as candidates for a superior inflammation imaging in the diagnosis and prediction of therapeutic response.

High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial

Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). Among 1188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC mean ± standard deviation: 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96; P< .001 for APC). The APC for Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy (P= .014). Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds; P= .006 and .018, respectively). For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02345889.).

Comparison of colon polyp detection rate with full-spectrum endoscopy versus forward-viewing colonoscopy

Comparison of colon polyp detection rate with full-spectrum endoscopy versus forward-viewing colonoscopy