[Conventional colonoscopy vs. cap-assisted colonoscopy: there are differences in colonoscopy performance?]

Calixto Duarte-Chang, Julio Zúñiga Cisneros, Ramiro Da Silva Rodriguez
{"title":"[Conventional colonoscopy vs. cap-assisted colonoscopy: there are differences in colonoscopy performance?]","authors":"Calixto Duarte-Chang, Julio Zúñiga Cisneros, Ramiro Da Silva Rodriguez","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Colonoscopy is the standard method for colorectal cancer diagnosis. Despite the use of multiple devices, polyp and adenoma detection results have been inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The main aim of this research is to determine if there have been differences between conventional colonoscopy (CC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in the diagnosis performance to detect adenomas.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This is a prospective randomized clinical trial that compares the diagnostic performance of CC and CAC in detecting adenomas in a public reference hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomly assigned 131 patients to either CC (n=64) or CAC (n=67). Cap-assisted colonoscopy was associated with shorter cecal intubation times (6 min vs. 7,5 min, p=0.005) and a higher chance of intubating the ileum (RR = 1.62; 1.21-2.17). There was no statistical difference in the adenoma detection rates (RR: 1.62; 1.21-2.17) or polyp detection rates (RR: 1.07; 0.602-1.919) between CC and CAC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cap-assisted colonoscopy was associated with a shorter duration of cecal intubation and a higher probability of ileum intubation. We did not find statistical differences in the adenoma detection rates. In the CAC arm, there was a trend to detect more adenoma in the right colon, although this difference was not statistically significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":35807,"journal":{"name":"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Colonoscopy is the standard method for colorectal cancer diagnosis. Despite the use of multiple devices, polyp and adenoma detection results have been inconsistent.

Objectives: The main aim of this research is to determine if there have been differences between conventional colonoscopy (CC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in the diagnosis performance to detect adenomas.

Materials and methods: This is a prospective randomized clinical trial that compares the diagnostic performance of CC and CAC in detecting adenomas in a public reference hospital.

Results: We randomly assigned 131 patients to either CC (n=64) or CAC (n=67). Cap-assisted colonoscopy was associated with shorter cecal intubation times (6 min vs. 7,5 min, p=0.005) and a higher chance of intubating the ileum (RR = 1.62; 1.21-2.17). There was no statistical difference in the adenoma detection rates (RR: 1.62; 1.21-2.17) or polyp detection rates (RR: 1.07; 0.602-1.919) between CC and CAC.

Conclusion: Cap-assisted colonoscopy was associated with a shorter duration of cecal intubation and a higher probability of ileum intubation. We did not find statistical differences in the adenoma detection rates. In the CAC arm, there was a trend to detect more adenoma in the right colon, although this difference was not statistically significant.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[传统结肠镜检查与帽子辅助结肠镜检查:结肠镜检查效果有差异吗?]
简介:结肠镜检查是诊断大肠癌的标准方法:结肠镜检查是诊断结肠直肠癌的标准方法。尽管使用了多种设备,但息肉和腺瘤的检测结果并不一致:本研究的主要目的是确定传统结肠镜检查(CC)和帽子辅助结肠镜检查(CAC)在检测腺瘤的诊断性能方面是否存在差异:这是一项前瞻性随机临床试验,在一家公立参考医院比较了CC和CAC在检测腺瘤方面的诊断性能:我们将131名患者随机分配到CC(64人)或CAC(67人)。帽式结肠镜检查与较短的盲肠插管时间(6 分钟对 7.5 分钟,P=0.005)和较高的回肠插管几率(RR = 1.62; 1.21-2.17)相关。CC和CAC的腺瘤检出率(RR:1.62;1.21-2.17)和息肉检出率(RR:1.07;0.602-1.919)没有统计学差异:结论:帽式辅助结肠镜检查与较短的盲肠插管时间和较高的回肠插管概率有关。我们没有发现腺瘤检出率存在统计学差异。在 CAC 组中,右侧结肠腺瘤的检出率呈上升趋势,但这一差异在统计学上并不显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: La REVISTA DE GASTROENTEROLOGíA DEL PERÚ, es la publicación oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú que publica artículos originales, artículos de revisión, reporte de casos, cartas e información general de la especialidad; dirigido a los profesionales de la salud con especial interés en la gastroenterología. La Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú es una publicación de periodicidad trimestral y tiene como objetivo la publicación de artículos científicos inéditos en el campo de la gastroenterología, proporcionando información actualizada y relevante de la especialidad y áreas afines. La Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú publica artículos en dos idiomas, español e inglés, a texto completo en la versión impresa yelectrónica. Los artículos científicos son sometidos a revisores o árbitros nacionales e internacionales, especialistas que opinan bajo la modalidad de doble ciego y de manera anónima sobre la calidad y validez de los mismos. El número de revisores depende del tipo de artículo, dos revisores como mínimo para artículos originales y uno como mínimo para otros tipos de artículos.
期刊最新文献
[Commun salt application as a treatment for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy periostomal granuloma]. [Conventional colonoscopy vs. cap-assisted colonoscopy: there are differences in colonoscopy performance?] [Efficaccy of probiotic in the treatment of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. Systematic review and meta-analysis]. [Evaluation of the usability of patients attended in gastrointestinal telemedicine postpandemic at University clinic]. [Procedure, reading and interpretation of capsule endoscopy].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1