Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3-10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33-4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44-4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: -21.40-78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation. CONCLUSION: CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of the adenoma detection rate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library were searched up to the end of June 8, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy were included. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the relative risk with a 95% CI, whereas continuous data were pooled using a mean difference with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 23 RCTs involving 17,999 patients were included. Compared with standard colonoscopy, use of the Endocuff was associated with a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24), polyp detection rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.43), left-side lesion detection rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), and mean number of adenomas per patient (MD = 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.26). There were no significant differences between the and groups in detection of advanced adenomas, mean number of polyps per patient, right-side lesion detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence suggests a significant improvement in the adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate using the Endocuff. On the other hand, no significant effect on the detection of advanced adenomas and mean number of polyps per patient was noted.

Colonoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Using a Curvilinear Array Transducer: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Curvilinear array ultrasound transducers enable tissue sampling and have therapeutic capabilities. Nevertheless, colonic intubation and maneuvering with these transducers is technically challenging and is therefore typically limited to the rectosigmoid area. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic yield of colonoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in deep colonic intubation. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: The impact of this innovation is to enable tissue sampling of colonic and extracolonic lesions guided by endoscopic ultrasound. TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Curvilinear array ultrasound is used in the evaluation of luminal and extraluminal colonic diseases. Thirteen patients underwent colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array ultrasound endoscope in a single center for subepithelial lesions, cancer staging, and extracolonic lesions from July 2015 to February 2021. Endosonography was performed using an Olympus EU-ME1 and GF-UCT 180 with a 5-12MHz curvilinear array transducer. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who were successfully scanned with the endoscopic ultrasound. The secondary outcomes included the success rate of fine-needle aspiration, the diagnostic yield of the tissue samples, and the adverse events related to the procedure. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: A total of 13 female patients underwent colonoscopic ultrasound. All patients (100%, 13/13) were successfully scanned. Fine-needle aspiration was deemed necessary and successfully performed in 100% (5/5) of the patients. Tissue samples collected by fine-needle aspiration resulted in a diagnostic yield of 60%, and no adverse events resulted from this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of performing colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array transducer. Fine-needle aspiration for subepithelial, colonic, and extracolonic lesions is feasible and safe in this setting with no adverse events reported in our study. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Future research should be directed toward validating colonoscopic ultrasound with a curvilinear array transducer technique in prospective randomized trials. Studies evaluating the feasibility and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions in the colon, such as abscess drainage and enteral anastomosis, should be considered.

Study on the effectiveness of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of modified colonoscopy nursing pads in colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 262 subjects who underwent colonoscopy at our endoscopy center between September 1, 2021 and February 28, 2022 were selected and randomly divided into a control group and an experimental group, with 131 cases in each group. The control group used conventional nursing pads, while the experimental group used modified nursing pads. The success rate of the first correct position, the time spent by the nurse to guide the correct position, the bed unit contamination rate, the contamination rate of the operator's protective equipment, the privacy protection of the examinees and the satisfaction degree after the examination were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The success rate of the first correct position of the examinees in the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the time spent by the nurses to guide the correct position in the experimental group was less than that of the control group (P < 0.05). The bed unit contamination rate and operator's protective equipment contamination rate of the experimental group were lower than those of the control group, and the satisfaction degree of the examinees was higher in the experimental group than in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The modified colonoscopy nursing pad can save the time of correct colonoscopy positioning of examinees, improve the efficiency of colonoscopy, reduce the workload of nursing staff, effectively protect the privacy of patients, reduce the bed unit contamination and protective equipment contamination, and then improve the comfort and satisfaction of patients.

[Clinical application of LASEREO endoscopic system in early gastric cancer].

Objective: To evaluate the clinical application of LASEREO endoscopic system in early gastric cancer (EGC). Methods: A total of 68 patients diagnosed with EGC were retrospectively analyzed between August 2017 to December 2020 in Fuding Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. There were 50 males and 18 females finally enrolled with a median age of 64 years. EGCs were analyzed from subjective and objective aspect, as well as from magnification and non-magnification status. Six endoscopists evaluated the visibility of the EGC (RSC) and calculated the color difference (ΔEC) between EGC and the surrounding mucosa in white light imaging (WLI), blue light imaging-bright (BLI-Bri) and linked color imaging (LCI) modes. In the case of magnification (×80), the visibility of the microstructures and microvessels (RSV) was analyzed and the color difference (ΔEV) between microvessels and non-vessels areas were calculated in WLI, BLI and LCI modes. The visibility was evaluated using visibility ranking scale(RS) and the color difference (ΔE) was calculated using L*a*b* color space. Results: In WLI, BLI-Bri, and LCI modes, the mean (±SD) RSC were 2.56±0.68, 2.63±0.59 and 3.17±0.50, and the mean(±SD) ΔEC were 15.71±5.58, 12.04±3.73, and 22.84±8.46, respectively, which in LCI were higher than those in WLI and BLI-Bri modes (P<0.001).Regarding the data evaluated by senior endoscopists, the RSC was higher in BLI-Bri than that in WLI mode (2.98±0.58 vs. 2.79±0.73, P<0.001), but as to those evaluated by junior endoscopists, there were no significant differences between the WLI and BLI-Bri modes(2.29±0.72 vs. 2.23±0.72,P =0.218).In magnifying endoscopy with WLI, BLI, and LCI modes, the mean(±SD) RSV were 2.95±0.28, 3.46±0.40, and 3.38±0.33, and the mean (±SD) ΔEV were 21.68±7.52, 44.29±10.94, and 45.38±14.29, respectively.The RSV and ΔEV in LCI and BLI were higher than that in WLI mode (P<0.001). Conclusions: LCI improves the visibility of EGC by increasing ΔEC, especially in junior endoscopists. Both BLI and LCI improve the visibility of microstructures and microvessels under magnification.

Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized trials that compared the effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects metaregression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 71897 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger; 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of postpolypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-1.08; P = .072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P < .001). In multilevel metaregression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61; P = .021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62; P = .581). CONCLUSIONS: In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of postpolypectomy bleeding overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm) proximal lesions.

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm. RESULTS: We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.

Efficacy of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence-based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09-2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478.

Snare Tip Is an Alternative Tool for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is typically performed by specialized knife, such as a dual knife. However, it is not covered by Taiwan's National Health Insurance. In the literature review, using a traditional snare tip for endoscopic submucosal dissection has been reported for stomach lesions only. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a snare tip. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical using of a snare tip compared with a dual knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Postoperative short- and long-term outcomes were investigated after the procedure. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single tertiary care institution. PATIENTS: Patients who could not afford the expense of a specialized knife were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dissection time, dissection speed, and perioperative complications were used for short-term outcome measurement. Recurrence-free rate was used for long-term outcome measurement. RESULTS: Twenty-one lesions were in the snare tip group and 57 lesions in the dual knife group. The outcomes, including rate of en bloc resection, complication, local recurrence, and recurrence-free interval, between the 2 groups were similar. The mean resected specimen diameter in the dual knife group is larger than the snare tip group (p = 0.041). The dissection time of the snare tip group was shorter than the dual knife group (p = 0.025). However, the dissection speed was significantly slower in the snare tip group than in the dual knife group (p = 0.008). LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective and single doctor chart review in nature with a limited patient number. CONCLUSIONS: The snare tip is an alternative tool for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in a selected population without the support of specialized knives, such as the dual knife. Although the dissection speed is slower using a snare tip, it is still a recommended technique for developing country or low-income patients.

Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate of water exchange, Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sessile serrated adenoma/polyp (SSA/P) may contribute to interval cancer. In a recent meta-analysis, water exchange (WE) was shown to be superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at adenoma and advanced adenoma detection. The strong positive correlation between adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/PDR) prompted us to hypothesize that WE could significantly improve SSA/PDR compared with Endocuff and cap colonoscopy. METHODS: The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported SSA/PDR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing SSA/PDR of each method using air insufflation as the control and reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS: A total of 531 articles resulted from initial keywords search. Eleven RCTs were included in the analysis. A total of 7856 patients underwent air insufflation, WE, Endocuff, or cap colonoscopy. WE significantly increased SSA/PDR (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.33-3.13). Endocuff (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41) and cap (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.42-2.74) did not significantly impact SSA/P detection. P-scores for WE (0.96), Endocuff (0.49), cap (0.37), and air insufflation (0.17) suggested that WE had the highest SSA/PDR. The results did not change after adjusting for mean withdrawal time and indication for colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Water exchange significantly increases SSA/PDR and is superior to Endocuff and cap colonoscopy at detecting SSA/P.

Cumulative evidence for reducing recurrence of colonic diverticular bleeding using endoscopic clipping versus band ligation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Either clipping or band ligation will become the most common endoscopic treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). Rebleeding is a significant clinical outcome of CDB, but there is no cumulative evidence comparing reduction of short-term and long-term rebleeding between them. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which endoscopic treatment is more effective to reduce recurrence of CDB. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the databases PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase was performed through December 2019. Main outcomes were early and late rebleeding rates, defined as bleeding within 30 days and 1 year of endoscopic therapy for CDB. Initial hemostasis, need for transcatheter arterial embolization, or surgery were also assessed. Overall pooled estimates were calculated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, and a total of 790 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of early rebleeding was significantly lower for band ligation than clipping (0.08 vs 0.19; heterogeneity test, P = 0.012). The pooled prevalence of late rebleeding was significantly lower for band ligation than clipping (0.09 vs 0.29; heterogeneity test, P = 0.024). No significant difference of initial hemostasis rate was noted between the two groups. Pooled prevalence of need for transcatheter arterial embolization or surgery was significantly lower for band ligation than clipping (0.01 vs 0.02; heterogeneity test, P = 0.031). There were two cases with colonic diverticulitis due to band ligation but none in clipping. CONCLUSION: Band ligation therapy was more effective compared with clipping to reduce recurrence of colonic diverticular hemorrhage over short-term and long-term durations.

Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: It is not clear whether prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs) prevents delayed bleeding (DB). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that compared clipping versus (vs) nonclipping in prevention of DB following EMR of LNPCLs. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was determined using a random effects model. The pooled ORs of DB, perforation, and post-polypectomy syndrome in the clipping group compared with the nonclipping group comprised the outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on study design, polyp location, and completeness of wound closure were performed. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 3112 LNPCLs were extracted. Prophylactic clipping reduced the risk of DB compared with nonclipping (3.3% vs 6.2%, OR: 0.494, P = 0.002) following EMR of LNPCLs. In subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping reduced DB of LNPCLs at proximal location (3.8% vs 9.8%, P = 0.029), but not of them at distal location (P = 0.830). Complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = 0.004). No benefit of clipping for preventing perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome was observed (P = 0.301 and 0.988, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic clipping can reduce DB following EMR of LNPCLs at proximal location. Besides, complete wound closure showed superior efficacy to prevent DB compared with partial closure. Further cost analyses should be conducted to implement the most cost-effective strategies.

AmplifEYE assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: AmplifEYE is a mucosal exposure device mounted to the tip of colonoscope to improve polyp or adenoma detection. We aim to compare the adenoma detection rates (ADR) of AmplifEYE-assisted colonoscopy (AC) with standard colonoscopy (SC). METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial involving patients aged 50 to 79 who underwent AC or SC in two centers. Procedures were performed by five experienced colonoscopists. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were recruited, with 334 patients (170 AC and 164 SC) included into analysis. The ADR was numerically higher in AC (47.1%) versus SC (40.9%), P = 0.253. The polyp detection rate (PDR) in AC was 68.2% versus 54.3% in SC, P = 0.009, and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) in AC was 37.6% versus 20.1% in SC, P < 0.001, both statistically significant higher in the study group. The mean cecal intubation time was shorter with AmplifEYE (8.0 min in AC vs 8.9 min in SC, P = 0.030), and there was no difference in pain score (3 in AC vs 4 in SC, P = 0.121). CONCLUSIONS: AmplifEYE-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved the PDR and SDR, while the ADR was numerically higher in AC that did not reach statistical significance. Using the device resulted in shorter cecal intubation time and did not cause more pain.

Latest Generation High-Definition Colonoscopy Increases Adenoma Detection Rate by Trainee Endoscopists.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator of colonoscopy. High-definition (HD) colonoscopy has been reported to increase ADR compared to standard-definition (SD) colonoscopy. Although there are few reports comparing the latest generation and the previous generation of HD colonoscopy equipment, there are reports that the latest generation colonoscopy equipment improves ADR. However, there are no reports on the impact of the latest generation HD colonoscopy on the ADR of trainee endoscopists. AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the latest generation HD colonoscopy increases the ADR of trainee endoscopists compared with the previous generation HD colonoscopy. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients aged 40-79 years old, who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy performed by nine gastroenterology fellows at Dong-A University Hospital from March 2019 to February 2020. We calculated the overall ratios of the ADR: the ADRs of the group using the older generation HD colonoscopy equipment and the group using the latest HD colonoscopy equipment. Polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR), and advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR) were calculated for each group. Factors related to adenoma detection were identified using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Altogether, 2189 patients were included in the study (the older HD colonoscopy group comprising 1183 and the latest HD colonoscopy group comprising 1006). We found that PDR (45.98 vs. 51.69%, p = 0.008) and ADR (35.67 vs. 40.85%, p = 0.013) were significantly higher in the latest generation HD colonoscopy group. The generational differences were not statistically significant for SSPDR (1.94 vs. 2.78%, p = 0.195) or ANDR (4.65 vs. 4.97%, p = 0.726). In the multivariate regression analysis, age, male sex, the latest generation HD colonoscopy, and long withdrawal time were the most significant factors affecting adenoma detection. CONCLUSIONS: The latest generation HD colonoscopy improved PDR and ADR by trainee endoscopists. These findings suggest that latest generation, higher-resolution colonoscopy equipment can improve the quality of colonoscopy for less experienced endoscopists.

Small-Dose Endoscopic Tattooing Using a Novel Needle for Localization Prior to Laparoscopic Surgery of Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUNDS: Endoscopic tattooing failure by deep mural injection or tattoo leakage-induced massive staining causes localization errors or decreased laparoscopic visualization. To overcome these, we developed a novel tattoo needle with comparatively shorter needle (length, 2.5 mm) and minimal-caliber catheter (volume, 0.3 mL). AIMS: The single-center, prospective observational study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of a small-doze endoscopic tattooing prior to laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, using the needle. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer indicated for laparoscopic surgery were recruited. With the novel needle, a single tattoo was created at the anterior wall close to the lesion. During laparoscopic surgery, surgeons assessed the tattoo visibility, tattoo leakage, and the disturbance of laparoscopic view by tattoo leakage. The primary endpoint was an accurate localization by visible tattoo. Secondary endpoints were adverse events related to tattooing, the need for intraoperative endoscopy, and tattoo leakage. RESULTS: A total of 383 tattoos in 358 patients were analyzed. Accurate tumor localization rate was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.3-98.0%). No adverse events occurred. Intraoperative colonoscopy was performed in 7 (1.8%) patients with invisible tattoo. Tattoo leakage was found in 4.2% (95%CI: 2.6-6.7%), and leakage disturbed the laparoscopic view of the surgical plane in 0.7% (95%CI: 0.3-2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, our endoscopic tattooing with a standardized protocol using a novel needle is considered a simple, highly reliable localization technique with an extremely safe profile, which would be valuable to reduce physician's efforts and redundant medical resources. Trial registration number UMIN000021012. Date of registration: June 2016.

Effect of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopies are considered to be the primary screening test and gold standard test for colorectal cancer. Position changes during colonoscope withdrawal are believed to be associated with an increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). However, previous results conflicted, and this study aimed to elucidate the effectiveness of dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal. METHODS: The relevant publications were identified by searching the medical databases. The primary outcomes were the ADR and PDR, which were pooled and analyzed. The secondary outcome was the withdrawal time. The studies that supplied the ADR and PDR for different segments of the colon were separated into subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis. The total ADR was higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (odds ratio, [OR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.59; p < 0.001), with low evidence of between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Although the total PDR was slightly higher with dynamic position changes than with a static position (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88-1.73), there difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). The withdrawal time was only increased by 0.47 min (95% CI - 0.11 to 1.06) with dynamic position changes, without statistical significance (p = 0.11). The subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR for the transverse colon were higher with dynamic position changes, with pooled estimates of ADR (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.02-2.88; p = 0.04) and PDR (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.08-2.96; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Dynamic position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increased the total ADR; however, no obvious increase was found in the total PDR. The withdrawal time was not significantly prolonged with dynamic position changes. Subgroup analysis showed that the ADR and PDR in the transverse colon were obviously improved with dynamic position changes.

Success, safety, and usefulness of right colon retroflexion for the detection of additional colonic lesions not visualized with standard frontal view.

BACKGROUND: Missed adenomas are the main concern for endoscopists. Right colon retroflexion (RCR) seems to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR), but important variation in success and usefulness of this maneuver has been reported in the literature AIMS: Primary objective: to assess additional adenoma detection rate (AADR) detected during the RCR attempt. Secondary objectives: to assess success rates of RCR, variables associated with it, and safety of RCR. METHODS: This is a prospective, unicentric, non-randomized study. Consecutive colonoscopies done by six endoscopists (3 of them with < 3 years of experience and 3 with > 3 years) from March to May 2017 were included. Olympus colonoscopes were used (CF-H190, CF-H180) Demographic, clinical, and endoscopic variables were collected. RESULTS: 463 colonoscopies were included. RCR success rate was 93.1% (431/463 colonoscopies). Forty additional lesions were visualized during RCR in 34/463 colonoscopies (7.3%). Additional adenomas were detected in 31/463 colonoscopies (6.7%; OR 0.07). HISTOLOGY: low-grade dysplasia adenomas in 29/40 (72.5%) lesions; 3/40 (7.5%), adenomas with high-grade dysplasia; and 7/40 (17.5%) sessile serrated lesions. Additional adenoma detection contributed to modify the colonoscopy surveillance interval in 25 patients (5.4% of the cohort). Variables associated with RCR success in multivariate analysis were no previous abdominal surgery, length of colonoscope insertion in cecum < 80 cm, and use of Olympus 190 series colonoscopes. No differences between endoscopists' experience were found. RCR was a safe maneuver, with no adverse events in our study. CONCLUSIONS: RCR is a feasible and safe maneuver that can increase ADR, so its routine inclusion in colonoscopy practice should be considered.

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in routine practice: a cluster-randomised crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endocuff Vision (ECV) is the second generation of a device designed to improve polyp detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate its impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy. DESIGN: This cluster-randomised crossover trial compared Endocuff-assisted (ECV+) with standard (ECV-) colonoscopy. Two teams of 11 endoscopists each with prior ECV experience, balanced in terms of basal ADR, gender and case volume were compared. In randomised fashion, the teams started with ECV+ or ECV- and switched group after inclusion of half of the cases. The main outcome criterion was ADR difference between ECV+ and ECV-. Subgroup analysis was done for physicians with low and high ADR (< or ≥ 25%). RESULTS: During two periods of 20 and 21 weeks, respectively, the 22 endoscopists included 2058 patients (1032 ECV- vs 1026 ECV+, both groups being comparable). Overall ADR for both groups taken together was higher with ECV (39.2%) than without (29.4%; p<0.001) irrespective of the sequence of use (ECV+ or ECV- first), but mostly in adenomas <1 cm. In the physician subgroup analysis, only high detectors showed a significant ADR increase (from 31% to 41%, p<0.001), while the increase in the low detectors was not significant (from 24% to 30%, p=0.11). ECV had a positive impact in all colonic locations, except for the rectum. No ECV- related complication was reported. CONCLUSION: We observed a significant ADR difference of approximately 10% by the use of ECV. By subgroup analysis, this increase was significant only in physicians classified as high detectors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03344055).

Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection: A Clinical Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection. METHODS: Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time. RESULTS: There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P = .0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P = .14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P < .0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P = .07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P = .21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P = .12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P = .09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION: In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03361917.