Transparent Cap Colonoscopy versus Standard Colonoscopy to Improve Caecal Intubation

Department of General Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK, S5 7AU.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2012; 12(12):CD008211. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008211.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Colonoscopy is considered the gold-standard investigation for screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer. It is also becoming increasingly desirable for assessment, management, diagnosis and follow-up of other colorectal diseases, such as inflammatory bowel diseases and acute diverticulitis. Hence, due to the increasing demand for colonoscopy, devices to advance examination techniques are highly sought-after and the colonoscope with the transparent cap could be one of these.
To identify and review all relevant data in order to determine whether colonoscopy with a transparent cap is a more effective diagnostic tool than colonoscopy.
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of colonoscopy with a transparent cap with standard colonoscopy.
Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials which compared the use of colonoscopy with a transparent cap with standard colonoscopy.
Data on study methods, participants, interventions used and outcomes measured was extracted from each study. Data was entered into the Cochrane Review Manager software (RevMan 5.0, 2008) and analysed using Cochrane MetaView.
In the present meta-analysis, we considered 14 randomised controlled trials so far published. The findings of our work indicate that colonoscopy with transparent cap has a faster caecal intubation time when compared with standard colonoscopy. Reviewing studies individually would also seem to favour colonoscopy with transparent cap for polyp detection rate and pain during procedure but due to lack of comparable data meta-analysis was not feasible.
This review suggests that a transparent cap on the end of the colonoscope may give a marginally faster caecal intubation time compared with standard colonoscopy. It also suggests that there is a better polyp detection rate and less pain with the cap. However, the authors feel that further randomised controlled trials in this area would provide more clinically significant information on this adjunct to colonoscopy.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an endoscopic alternative to surgical resection of mucosal and submucosal neoplastic lesions. Prior to the development of knives, EMR could be performed with accessories to elevate the lesion. After the development of various knives, en bloc resection was possible without other accessories. So, recently, simple snaring without suction or endoscopic submucosal dissection using knife in the epithelial lesions such as adenoma or early mucosal cancer has been performed. However, for easy and complete resection of subepithelial lesions such as carcinoid tumor, a few accessories are needed. Complete resection of rectal carcinoid tumors is difficult to achieve with conventional endoscopic resection techniques because these tumors often extend into the submucosa. The rate of positive resection margin for tumor is lower in the group of EMR using a cap (EMR-C) or EMR with a ligation device (EMR-L) than conventional EMR group. EMR-C and EMR-L (or endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device) may be a superior method to conventional EMR for removing small rectal carcinoid tumors.
    09/2013; 46(5):492-494. DOI:10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.492
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.
    Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology 01/2014; 8(1):29-47. DOI:10.1586/17474124.2014.858599 · 2.55 Impact Factor