Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy increases polyp detection rate: a simulated randomized study involving an anatomic colorectal model and 32 international endoscopists

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The undetected colonic lesions behind the folds and flexures are a major factor contributing to the adenoma miss rate.

Objective

To assess the efficacy of Endocuff®, a special attachment was fixed at the distal tip of a colonoscope, for the polyp detection. This soft accessory is composed of a plastic cap surrounded by flexible finger-like projections on the lateral sides of the cap that make holding of the folds during scope withdrawal easier.

Design

This was a simulated pilot study with one anatomic colorectal model, containing 13 polyps positioned in obvious locations and behind the folds. Thirty-two endoscopists (16 Japanese and 16 foreign visitors) with different levels of experience performed examinations on the model in a randomized order by using Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscope (SC).

Main outcome measurements

To assess the detection rate of polyps and the feasibility of Endocuff® insertion.

Results

EAC detected significantly more polyps than SC with 9.9 versus 7.5 mean lesions (p = 0.03), respectively, comparing the 16 first colonoscopies in each group. Endocuff® was useful independent of the level of experience of the participants. After crossover, EAC in second position allowed an additional detection of 1.8 polyps compared with SC (p = 0.001). After adjustment on experience, time of detection, and order of colonoscopy, EAC over-detected 1.2 polyps (p = 0.0037). The insertion time (p = 0.99) was identical. There was no difference in the mean time of polyp detection between EAC and SC groups (p = 0.520).

Limitations

This was not a clinical study. The stiffness of the folds in the colonic model was higher than in the human large bowel.

Conclusion

EAC was associated with a higher polyp detection rate. Even in such relatively stiff anatomic model, it was easier to spread out the colonic mucosa between the folds using this cap. This study provides an additional argument for the routine application of this easy-to-use accessory to improve polyp detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, Schäfer C, Horst D, Becker CR, Nikolaou K, Lottes A, Geisbüsch S, Kramer H, Wagner AC, Diepolder H, Schirra J, Roth HJ, Seidel D, Göke B, Reiser MF, Kolligs FT (2009) Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 58:241–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, Coumaros D, Bauret P, Potier P, Sautereau D, Boustière C, Grimaud JC, Barthélémy C, Sée J, Serraj I, D’Halluin PN, Branger B, Ponchon T (2008) Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 40:284–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, Lehman GA, Mark DG (1997) Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 112:24–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS (1991) Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 37:125–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rastogi A, Bansal A, Rao DS, Gupta N, Wani SB, Shipe T, Gaddam S, Singh V, Sharma P (2012) Higher adenoma detection rates with cap-assisted colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 61:402–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsushita M, Hajiro K, Okazaki K, Takakuwa H, Tominaga M (1998) Efficacy of total colonoscopy with a transparent cap in comparison with colonoscopy without the cap. Endoscopy 30:444–447

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gralnek IM, Segol O, Suissa A, Siersema PD, Carr-Locke DL, Halpern Z, Santo E, Domanov S (2013) A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 45:697–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Matsumoto T, Matsuda T, Oka S, Moriyama T, Higashi R, Saito Y (2013) A novel extra-wide-angle-view colonoscope: a simulated pilot study using anatomic colorectal models. Gastrointest Endosc 77:480–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lenze F, Beyna T, Lenz P, Heinzow HS, Hengst K, Ullerich H (2014) Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a new accessory to improve adenoma detection rate? Technical aspects and first clinical experiences. Endoscopy 46:610–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A, Ströbel P, Böhme R, Schepke M, Meister T (2014) Novel Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. [Epub ahead of print]

  11. Gralnek IM, Carr-Locke DL, Segol O, Halpern Z, Siersema PD, Sloyer A, Fenster J, Lewis BS, Santo E, Suissa A, Segev M (2013) Comparison of standard forward-viewing mode versus ultrawide-viewing mode of a novel colonoscopy platform: a prospective, multicenter study in the detection of simulated polyps in an in vitro colon model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 77:472–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R, Röming H, Ameis D, Heinecke A, Kunsch S, Ellenrieder V, Ströbel P, Schepke M, Meister T (2014) Higher adenoma detection rates with Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy—a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS One 9:e114267

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, Segol O, Melhem A, Suissa A, Santo E, Sloyer A, Fenster J, Moons LMG, Dik VK, D’Agostino RB, Rex DK (2014) Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 15:353–360

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF, Bass D, Herdman C, Kinney T, Gupta K, Wolf L, Dewar T, Deas TM, Mehta MK, Anwer MB, Pellish R, Hamilton JK, Polter D, Reddy KG, Hanan I (2010) Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 71:542–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Triadafilopoulos G, Watts HD, Higgins J, Van Dam J (2007) A novel retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device (Third Eye Retroscope) improves the detection of simulated polyps in anatomic models of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 65:139–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hewett DG, Rex DK (2011) Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 74:246–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pishvaian AC, Al-Kawas FH (2006) Retroflexion in the colon: a useful and safe technique in the evaluation and resection of sessile polyps during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101:1479–1483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsiamoulos ZP, Saunders BP (2012) A new accessory, endoscopic cuff, improves colonoscopic access for complex polyp resection and scar assessment in the sigmoid colon (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 76:1242–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by The National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (25-A-12). We would like to acknowledge the efforts of all the doctors listed below who participated to the study: Alessandro Lavagna (Italy), Alejandro Hernandez (Spain), Tomoko Okamoto (Japan), Kazuya Inoki (Japan), Genki Mori (Japan), Masayoshi Yamada (Japan), Dmitrii Mtrashvili (Russia), Egor Korolevsky (Russia), Liu Chengxia (China), Yue Zeng (China), Harry Aslanian (USA), Said Elmuhtady (UK), Ash Solimar (UK), Olga Buntseva (Russia), Ekaterina Ivanova (Russia), Hsion Le Puo (Tai Wan), Laura Martin Asenjo (Spain), Chi-kun Chiang (Tai Wan), Nobuaki Ikezawa (Japan), Emese Mihaly (Hungary), Masau Sekiguchi (Japan), Hirohito Tanaka (Japan), Hajime Takisawa (Japan), and Masanori Sekiguchi (Japan). We also acknowledge Dr. Hadrien Charvat (NCCH, Japan) and Masanori Nojima (Japan) for their advices for statistics calculations and Dr. Magdalena Metzner for the English edition of this manuscript.

Disclosures

Drs. Pioche, Matsumoto, Takamaru, Sakamoto, Nakajima, Abe, Matsuda, Kakugawa, Otake, and Saito have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan

    Mathieu Pioche, Minori Matsumoto, Hiroyuki Takamaru, Taku Sakamoto, Takeshi Nakajima, Takahisa Matsuda, Seiichiro Abe, Yasuo Kakugawa, Yosuke Otake & Yutaka Saito

  2. Endoscopy Division, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France

    Mathieu Pioche

Authors
  1. Mathieu Pioche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minori Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroyuki Takamaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Taku Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takeshi Nakajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takahisa Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Seiichiro Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yasuo Kakugawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yosuke Otake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yutaka Saito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yutaka Saito.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pioche, M., Matsumoto, M., Takamaru, H. et al. Endocuff®-assisted colonoscopy increases polyp detection rate: a simulated randomized study involving an anatomic colorectal model and 32 international endoscopists. Surg Endosc 30, 288–295 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4208-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4208-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation