Effect of Endocuff use on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endocuff With or Without Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Detection of Colorectal Adenoma: A Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

METHODS

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

Ultra-minimally invasive endoscopic techniques and colorectal diseases: Current status and its future

Colorectal diseases are increasing due to altered lifestyle, genetic, and environmental factors. Colonoscopy plays an important role in diagnosis. Advances in colonoscope (ultrathin scope, magnetic scope, capsule) and technological gadgets (Balloon assisted scope, third eye retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE, dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, etc.) have made colonoscopy more comfortable and efficient. Now in-vivo microscopy can be performed using confocal laser endomicroscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, etc. Besides developments in diagnostic colonoscopy, therapeutic colonoscopy has improved to manage lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, obstruction, perforations, resection polyps, and early colorectal cancers. The introduction of combined endo-laparoscopic surgery and robotic endoscopic surgery has made these interventions feasible. The role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of colorectal diseases is also increasing day by day. Hence, this article is to review cutting-edge developments in endoscopic principles for the management of colorectal diseases.

Precision in detecting colon lesions: A key to effective screening policy but will it improve overall outcomes?

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer, resulting in a decrease in the incidence and mortality of colon cancer. However, it has a 21% rate of missed polyps. Several strategies have been devised to increase polyp detection rates and improve their characterization and delimitation. These include chromoendoscopy (CE), the use of other devices such as Endo cuffs, and major advances in endoscopic equipment [high definition, magnification, narrow band imaging, i-scan, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI), etc.]. In the retrospective study by Hiramatsu et al, they compared white-light imaging with CE, TXI, and CE + TXI to determine which of these strategies allows for better definition and delimitation of polyps. They concluded that employing CE associated with TXI stands out as the most effective method to utilize. It remains to be demonstrated whether these results are extrapolatable to other types of virtual CE. Additionally, further investigation is needed in order to ascertain whether this strategy could lead to a reduction in the recurrence of excised lesions and potentially lower the occurrence of interval cancer.

Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.

Methods

A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; I2=79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; I2=75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; I2=56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; I2=0%).

Conclusion

Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.

Retrospective comparison of G-EYE balloon-colonoscopy with standard colonoscopy for increased adenoma detection rate and reduced polyp removal time

Background and study aims  The newly introduced G-EYE colonoscope (G-EYE) employs a balloon, installed at the bending section of a standard colonoscope (SC), for increasing adenoma detection and stabilizing the colonoscope tip during intervention. This retrospective work explores the effect of introducing G-EYE into an SC endoscopy room, in terms of adenoma detection and polyp removal time. Patients and methods  This was a single-center, retrospective study. Historical data from patients who underwent colonoscopy prior to, and following, introduction of G-EYE into a particular endoscopy room were collected and analyzed to determine adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenoma per patient (APP), and polyp removal time (PRT), in each of the SC and G-EYE groups. Results  Records of 1362 patients who underwent SC and 1433 subsequent patients who underwent G-EYE colonoscopy in the same endoscopy unit by the same endoscopists were analyzed. Following G-EYE introduction, overall ADR increased by 37.5 % ( P  < 0.0001) from 39.2 % to 53.9 %, the serrated adenoma rate increased by 47.3 % from 27.9 % to 41.1 % ( P  < 0.0001), and the APP increased by 50.6 % from 0.79 to 1.19 ( P  < 0.0001). The number of advanced adenomas increased by 32.7 %, from 19.6 % to 26.0 % of all adenomas ( P  < 0.0001). With G-EYE, average PRT was reduced overall by 29.5 % ( P  < 0.0001), and particularly for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) by 37.5 % for polyps measuring ≥ 5 mm to ≤ 20 mm ( P  < 0.0001) and by 29.4 % for large polyps > 20 mm ( P  < 0.0001). Conclusions  Introduction of G-EYE to an SC endoscopy room yielded considerable increase in ADR and notable reduction in PRT, particularly with the EMR technique. G-EYE balloon colonoscopy might increase the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance colonoscopy, and can shorten the time of endoscopic intervention.

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.

Second-generation distal attachment cuff for adenoma detection in screening colonoscopy: a randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized studies have demonstrated that a distal attachment cap with rubber side arms, the Endocuff Vision (ECV; Olympus America, Center Valley, Pa, USA), increased colonoscopic adenoma detection rate (ADR) in various mixed patient collectives. This is the first study to evaluate its use in a primary colonoscopic screening program.

METHODS

Patients over age 55 years undergoing screening colonoscopy in 9 German private offices in Berlin and Hamburg were randomized to either the study group using ECV or the control group using high-definition colonoscopies (standard of care). The main outcome parameter was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were detection rates of all adenomas per colonoscopy (APCs), of adenoma subgroups, and of hyperplastic polyps.

RESULTS

Of 1416 patients (mean age, 61.1 years; 51.8% women), with a median of 41 examinations per examiner (n = 23; interquartile range, 12-81), 700 were examined with ECV and 716 without. Adjusting for the effects of the colonoscopies, ADR was 39.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.6%-46.3%) in the ECV group versus 32.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-38.6%) in the control group, which resulted in an increase of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-12.2%; P = .004). The increase in ADR was mainly because of small polyps, with adjusted ADRs for adenomas <10 mm of 33.3% (95% CI, 26.5%-40.2%) for study patients versus 24.0% (95% CI, 18.2%-29.8%) for control patients (P < .001). APC was also significantly increased (.57 ECV vs .51 control subjects, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

A distal attachment cap with side arms significantly increased the ADR in patients undergoing primary colonoscopic screening. Because of the correlation of ADR and interval cancer, its use should be encouraged, especially in this setting. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03442738.).

The effect of the endoscopic device Endocuff™/Endocuff vision™ on quality standards in colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)].

RESULTS

Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64-2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29-2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Yield of a second right colon examination during colonoscopy after a first examination using a mucosal exposure device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Double right colon examination during colonoscopy has been advocated to reduce the risk of interval cancer in the right colon. Whether 2 examinations are necessary when the first examination is performed with a mucosal exposure device is uncertain. We documented the rates of missed adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and hyperplastic polyps after an initial right colon examination by a high-level detector using a mucosal exposure device.

METHODS

At a single tertiary hospital outpatient practice, we prospectively collected data on the yield of a second examination of the right colon after an initial examination by a single high-detecting colonoscopist using a mucosal exposure device.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1331 eligible consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy. Right colon adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, and hyperplastic polyp miss rates were 15.8%, 14.1%, and 16.7%, respectively. Four percent of patients had adenomas detected in the right colon only with a second examination.

CONCLUSIONS

A second examination of the right colon is warranted, even when using a distal mucosal exposure device to perform colonoscopy.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Participation in clinical trials increases the detection of pre-malignant lesions during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colorectal adenoma detection has been associated with cancer prevention effectiveness. Clinical trials have been conceived to determine the role of several interventions to increase the detection of pre-malignant lesions. We hypothesized that colonoscopy in the setting of such trials have higher pre-malignant lesion detection rates.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study comparing the detection of pre-malignant lesions in 147 randomly sampled non-research colonoscopies and 294 from the control groups of two prospective trials. We included outpatients aged 40-79 who had no personal history of CRC.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The pre-malignant lesion detection rate in the trial vs control group was 65.6% vs 44.2% (OR 2.411; 95% CI 1.608-3.614; p<0.001), the polyp detection rate was 73.8% vs 59.9% (OR 1.889; 95% CI 1.242-2.876; p=0.003), the adenoma detection rate was 62.6% vs 44.2% (OR 2.110; 95% CI 1.411-3.155; p<0.001) and the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was 17% vs 4.1% (OR 4.816; 95% CI 2.014-11.515; p<0.001). The mean number of pre-malignant and sessile serrated lesions was 1.70 vs 1.06 (p=0.002) and 0.32 vs 0.06 (p=0.001) lesions per colonoscopy. In a multivariate analysis with each single potential confounder, there was no significant change in any of the study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients involved in colonoscopy trials may benefit from higher quality examinations, as shown by the higher detection rates. Institutions should consider supporting clinical research in colonoscopy as a simple means to improve colonoscopy quality and colorectal cancer prevention.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR 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 ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial

Background and aims

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colon cancer screening is most important for cancer prophylaxis. This work is the first three‐armed randomised controlled clinical trial aimed at comparing a head‐to‐head setting standard colonoscopy (SC) with Endocuff‐assisted colonoscopy (EC) and cap‐assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for improvement of ADR.

Methods

Patients from Poland and Germany with independent indication for colonoscopy were randomised into three arms of this trial: EC, CAC and SC. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, active Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, known stenosis and post‐colonic resection status.

Results

A total of 585 patients (195 SC, 189 EC and 186 CAC) were enrolled in this study. Indications were not different between the groups (colorectal cancer screening 51%, diagnostic colonoscopy in 31% and post‐polypectomy follow‐up in 18%; p = 0.94). Withdrawal time was a mean of 7 min in all groups (p = 0.658), and bowel preparation did not differ between the groups. The time to reach the caecum was significantly reduced when using the cap (a mean of 6 min for CAC vs. 7 min for SC; p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of the ADR between the groups (EC 32%, CAC 30%, SC 30%; p = 0.815). EC proved to be superior (EC vs. SC) in the sigmoid colon and transverse colon for polyp detection.

Conclusion

The use of EC increased the total number of polyps seen during colonoscopy. In contrast to recent studies, no significant improvement of the ADR was detected.

Efficacy of Endocuff Vision compared to first-generation Endocuff in adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate in high-definition colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Recently, the newer Endocuff Vision (ECV) has been evaluated for improving colonoscopy outcome metrics such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR). Due to lack of direct comparative studies between ECV and original Endocuff (ECU), we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate these outcomes. Methods  The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Sciences to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECV or ECU colonoscopy to high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. Direct as well as network meta-analyses comparing ADR and PDR were performed using a random effects model. Relative-risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results  A total of 12 RCTs with 8638 patients were included in the final analysis. On direct meta-analysis, ECV did not demonstrate statistically improved ADR compared to HD colonoscopy (RR: 1.12, 95 % CI 0.99-1.27). A clinically and statistically improved PDR was noted for ECV compared to HD (RR: 1.15, 95 % CI 1.03-1.28) and ECU compared to HD (RR: 1.26, 95 % CI 1.09-1.46) as well as improved ADR (RR: 1.22, 95 % CI 1.05-1.43) was observed for ECU colonoscopy when compared to HD colonoscopy. These results were also consistent on network meta-analysis. Lower overall complication rates (RR: 0.14, 95 % CI 0.02-0.84) and particularly lacerations/erosions (RR: 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02-0.70) were noted with ECV compared to ECU colonoscopy. Conclusions  Although safe, the newer ECV did not significantly improve ADR compared to ECU and HD colonoscopy. Further device modification is needed to increase the overall ADR and PDR.

Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Add-on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference.

RESULTS

Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta-analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0% vs 45.1%; P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2019

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's GIE Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2019 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of disinfection, artificial intelligence, bariatric endoscopy, adenoma detection, polypectomy, novel imaging, Barrett's esophagus, third space endoscopy, interventional EUS, and training. This document summarizes these "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2019.

Impact of water filling on terminal ileum intubation with a distal-tip mucosal exposure device

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endocuff improves detection at colonoscopy but seems to impede terminal ileal (TI) intubation. We assessed the impact of Endocuff Vision (EV) on TI intubation using adult or pediatric colonoscopes and evaluated whether filling the cecum with gas versus water affected the impact of EV on TI intubation.

METHODS

Using a prospectively recorded quality control database, we explored the impact of EV on TI intubation in ≤1 minute. We used adult and pediatric colonoscopes and tested the effect of filling the cecum with gas versus water. If the initial attempt failed, then the alternative (water vs gas) was tried as a rescue method.

RESULTS

TI intubation in ≤1 minute occurred in 91% of colonoscopies without EV versus 65% with EV, but the use of the pediatric colonoscope with EV had a higher success rate for TI intubation in ≤1 minute compared with the adult colonoscope with EV (73% vs 57%, P = .043). TI intubation in ≤1 minute was more successful with EV when the cecum was filled with water rather than gas (74% vs 56%, P = .019), but the benefit of water filling was limited to the adult colonoscope with EV. When EV was in place, water filling was more successful as a rescue method of TI intubation (58% vs 21%, P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

EV adversely affects TI intubation, particularly for adult colonoscopes. Water filling of the cecum mitigates the impact of EV on TI intubation with adult colonoscopes.

The evolution of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: where are we now?

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy has evolved over time, fulfilling a widening diagnostic and therapeutic remit. As our understanding of colorectal cancer and its prevention has improved, endoscopy has progressed with improved diagnostic technologies and advancing endoscopic therapies. Despite this, the fundamental design of the endoscope has remained similar since its inception. This review presents the important role lower gastrointestinal endoscopy serves in the prevention of colorectal cancer and the desirable characteristics of the endoscope that would enhance this. A brief history of the endoscope is presented. Current and future robotic endoscopic platforms, which may fulfil these desirable characteristics, are discussed. The incorporation of new technologies from allied scientific disciplines will help the endoscope fulfil its maximum potential in preventing the increasing global burden of colorectal cancer. There are a number of endoscopic platforms under development, which show significant promise.

Advances in endoscopy for colorectal polyp detection and classification

While colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colon cancer screening, recent advancements in endoscopes have allowed for improved visualization of the colonic mucosa and improved polyp detection rates. Newer technologies also allow for assessment of structural changes for polyp discrimination and determination of histologic type. Classification of polyps prevents the need for a histopathologic report, which requires the additional time and expertise of a pathologist and adds to the overall cost. This review considered advances in endoscopic technologies reported in PubMed over the past 12 years. Technologies that allow for increased visual field of colonic mucosa and may lead to improved colon polyp detection rates include cap-assisted colonoscopy, RetroView, extra-wide-angle view colonoscope, full-spectrum endoscopy, Third Eye Retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE balloon colonoscope, EndoRings, and Endocuff. Image-enhancing methods allow for pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions, which enables the physician to classify colorectal polyps according to certain polyp characteristics. Image-enhancing methods include chromoendoscopy, autofluorescence, and virtual chromoendoscopy, including narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, flexible spectral imaging chromoendoscopy, and STORZ professional image enhancement systems. In addition, advancements have been made in in vivo microscopic evaluation of colonic epithelium, including confocal laser endomicroscopy, endocytoscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, and autofluorescence spectroscopy. Colon capsule endoscopy also has a role in colon polyp detection and classification. The advancements in polyp detection and classification have great promise for earlier detection and removal of advanced adenomas before they advance to colorectal cancer.

Recent advances in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy continues to evolve as equipment and techniques improve. Traditionally, colonoscopy has focused on adenoma detection, characterisation and resection as the primary aims, and there has certainly been considerable activity over the last few years in terms of addressing these important issues. This review article not only will discuss progress made in these areas but also will focus on when to colonoscope in terms of introduction of faecal immunochemical testing, how to insert with the advent of water-assisted insertion, and how to withdraw using a bundle of evidence-based techniques to improve adenoma detection. In addition, the ramifications of failing to discover polyps and of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer are highlighted.