Help
Subscribe


All of GastroHep is now free access! - Click here to register Read For FREE - Our full range of review articles
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Guido Tytgat Profile of Pete Peterson Profile of Emmet Keeffe Profile of Peter Cotton Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Profiles
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Systematic Reviews
Meta-analyses
Guidelines
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Lectures
Classical Cases
Personal View
Quiz
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links
APT cover

Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS
link to aasld.org

News

Retrograde-viewing device influences adenoma detection during colonoscopy

The latest issue of the Gastroentestinal Endoscopy evaluates the impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy.

News image

Colonoscopy has been adopted as the preferred method to screen for colorectal neoplasia in the United States.

However, lesions can be missed because of numerous factors, including location on the proximal aspect of folds or flexures, where they may be difficult to detect with the forward-viewing colonoscope.

The Third Eye Retroscope (TER) is a disposable device that is passed through the instrument channel of a standard colonoscope to provide a retrograde view that complements the forward view of the colonoscope during withdrawal.

Dr Daniel DeMarco and colleagues from Texas, USA evaluated whether experience with the Third Eye Retroscope affects polyp detection rates and procedure times in experienced endoscopists who had not previously used the equipment.

Additional detection rates with the Third Eye Retroscope were 25% for adenomas
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The team performed an open-label, prospective, multicenter study at 9 U.S. sites, involving 298 patients presenting for colonoscopy, evaluating the use of the TER in combination with a standard colonoscope.

After cecal intubation, the Third Eye Retroscope was inserted through the instrument channel of the colonoscope.

During withdrawal, the forward and retrograde video images were observed simultaneously on a wide-screen monitor.

The team's primary outcome measures were the number and size of adenomas and all polyps detected with the standard colonoscope and with the colonoscope combined with the Third Eye Retroscope.

Secondary outcome measures were withdrawal phase time and total procedure time.

Each endoscopist examined 20 subjects, divided into quartiles according to the order of their procedures, and results were compared among quartiles.

Overall, 182 polyps were detected with the colonoscope and 27 additional polyps with the Third Eye Retroscope, a 15% increase.

A total of 100 adenomas were detected with the colonoscope and 16 more with the Third Eye Retroscope, a 16% increase.

For procedures performed after each endoscopist had completed 15 procedures while using the Third Eye Retroscope, the mean additional detection rates with the Third Eye Retroscope were 17% for all polyps and 25% for adenomas.

The research team found that for lesions 6 mm or larger, the overall additional detection rates with the Third Eye Retroscope for all polyps and for adenomas were 23% and 24%, respectively.

For lesions 10 mm or larger, the overall additional detection rates with the Third Eye Retroscope for all polyps and for adenomas were 23% and 19%, respectively.

The team noted that the mean withdrawal times in the first and fourth quartiles were 11 and 9 minutes, respectively.

Dr DeMarco's team concludes, "Polyp detection rates improved significantly with the TER, especially after 15 procedures, when the mean additional detection rate for adenomas was 25%."

"Additional detection rates with the Third Eye Retroscope for medium-size and large adenomas were greater than for smaller lesions."

"These results suggest that, compared with a colonoscope alone, a retrograde-viewing device can increase detection rates for clinically significant adenomas without detriment to procedure time or procedure complications."

Gastroenterol Endoscopy 2010: 71(3): 542-50
08 March 2010

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 02 September 2010

Advanced search
 02 September 2010 
Risk of colorectal cancer in screenees
 02 September 2010 
Predicting clinical outcomes in liver disease
 02 September 2010 
Recurrent venous thromboembolism
 01 September 2010 
Mortality among undiagnosed celiac disease
 01 September 2010 
Sedation for colonoscopy and EGD in the United States
 01 September 2010 
Natural history of Crohn's disease
 31 August 2010 
Noninvasive prediction of esophageal varices
 31 August 2010 
Determining surveillance of colonic polyps
 31 August 2010 
Medical treatment of Crohn's disease
 30 August 2010 
Trastuzumab for advanced gastric cancer
 30 August 2010 
Beta-blockers in patients refractory ascites
 30 August 2010 
Sustained virological response in HCV
 27 August 2010 
Cognitive functioning and age in senior surgeons
 27 August 2010 
Lifestyle and polyp detection on screening
 27 August 2010 
Antibiotics reduce infection following colectomy
 26 August 2010 
Mesenteric embolization for lower GI bleeding
 26 August 2010 
Follow-up of open vs laparoscopic appendicectomy
 26 August 2010 
Socioeconomic status predicts operative mortality
 25 August 2010 
Wholegrains and risk of colorectal cancers
 25 August 2010 
Alcohol intake and risk of colorectal cancer
 24 August 2010 
Microbiota alteration from donor flora
 24 August 2010 
Complicated hernia with cirrhosis and refractory ascites
 24 August 2010 
Score to identify colectomy risk
 23 August 2010 
Perceptions of medication safety in IBD patients
 23 August 2010 
Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for perforated diverticulitis
 23 August 2010 
Pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in sub-Saharan Africa
 20 August 2010 
Predicting outcome in acute liver failure
 20 August 2010 
Persistent reflux on PPI therapy
 20 August 2010 
Celiacs without villous atrophy
 19 August 2010 
Centralization improves rectal cancer outcomes
 19 August 2010 
Mortality from peptic ulcer bleeding
 19 August 2010 
Gender variation of IBS symptoms
 18 August 2010 
Eosinophilic esophagitis epidemiology
 18 August 2010 
Care in patients with chronic HCV
 18 August 2010 
Operative mortality in resource-limited settings
 17 August 2010 
Achalasia in a Canadian population
 17 August 2010 
Steatosis as a risk in hepatic resection
 17 August 2010 
Renal failure associated with hepatitis A
 16 August 2010 
Missed cancers after esophagogastroduodenoscopy
 16 August 2010 
Surveillance of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis
 16 August 2010 
Oral bisphosphonates and esophageal cancer
 13 August 2010 
Guidelines for surveillance colonoscopies
 13 August 2010 
Metastatic colorectal patients' outcome
 13 August 2010 
Treatment response in functional bowel disorders
 12 August 2010 
Infliximab dosing on maintenance therapy in Crohn's
 12 August 2010 
Renal transplants in chronic Hep B
 12 August 2010 
Endoscopic resection for Barrett's dysplasia
 11 August 2010 
Treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer
 11 August 2010 
Bacterial infections with pouchitis
 11 August 2010 
Cancer risk in Peutz–Jeghers syndrome
 10 August 2010 
Laparoscopic vs open mesh repair for inguinal hernia
 10 August 2010 
Guidelines to select endoscopy patients
 10 August 2010 
Stability of IBS over time
 09 August 2010 
Determinants of spontaneous Hep B antigen clearance
 09 August 2010 
Gastroprotection with PCI
 09 August 2010 
Capsule endoscopy for Crohn's disease
 06 August 2010 
GERD in minority populations in the USA
 06 August 2010 
Risk factors for incisional hernias
 06 August 2010 
Omental fat and insulin sensitivity
 05 August 2010 
Effects of PPIs on gastric emptying

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2010 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us