Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: A randomized, crossover trial

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 456-463

  East, James E ^a,b   Bassett, Paul ^a   Arebi, Naila ^a   Thomas Gibson, Siwan ^a   Guenther, Thomas ^a   Saunders, Brian P ^a  

^a ST MARK S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GLUCAGON; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY POSITION; CANCER SCREENING; CECUM; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COLON ADENOMA; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPE; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DESCENDING COLON; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTESTINE PREPARATION; INTUBATION; LATERAL POSITION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT POSITIONING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECTUM HEMORRHAGE; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGMOID; SPLEEN; SUPINE POSITION; TRANSVERSE COLON; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADENOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CECUM; COLON; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT POSITIONING; SUPINE POSITION;

EID: 79952052770     PISSN: 00165107     EISSN: 10976779     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.046     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Muller AD, Sonnenberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy: a case-control study of 32,702 veterans. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:904-10.
2. Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al. Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 2005;129:34-41. (Pubitemid 41002040)
3. Rex D. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:33-6. (Pubitemid 30051607)
4. East JE, Suzuki N, Arebi N, et al. Position changes improve visibility during colonoscope withdrawal: a randomized, blinded, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:263-9. (Pubitemid 46148890)
5. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533-41. (Pubitemid 44917501)
6. East JE, Saunders BP, Boone D, et al. Effect of antispasmodic on colonic surface area visualisation at CT simulated optical colonoscopy [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:AB268.
7. Rex DK, Helbig CC. High yields of small and flat adenomas with high-definition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology 2007;133:42-7. (Pubitemid 47031129)
8. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795-803.
9. Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, et al. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 2003;226:653-61. (Pubitemid 36259138)
10. Cotton PB, Williams CB. Colonoscopy. In: Cotton PB, Williams CB, editors. Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cambridge (Mass): Blackwell Science; 1990. p. 160-223.
11. Rex DK. Missed neoplasms and optimal colonoscopic withdrawal technique. In: Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB, editors. Colonoscopy principles and practice. Massachusetts: Blackwell; 2003. p. 339-50.
12. Saunders BP. Colonoscopy: basic instrumentation and technique. In: Classen M, Tytgat G, Lightdale CJ, editors. Gastroenterological endoscopy. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2002. p. 135-51.
13. Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58(suppl 1):S3-43.
14. Senn S. Cross-over trials in clinical research, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2007.
15. East JE, Stavrindis M, Thomas-Gibson S, et al. A comparative study of standard vs. high definition colonoscopy for adenoma and hyperplastic polyp detection with optimized withdrawal technique. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;28:768-76.
16. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV, et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2007;133:1077-85. (Pubitemid 47494453)
17. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1872-85.
18. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24-8. (Pubitemid 27008981)
19. Hasuda K, Oda Y, Goto H, et al. The improvement of finding neoplastic lesions in colonoscopy with posture conversion [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:AB253.
20. Hansen JJ, Ulmer BJ, Rex DK. Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:52-6. (Pubitemid 38679101)
21. Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004;53:277-83.
22. Grant DS, Bartram CI, Heron CW. A preliminary study of the possible benefits of using carbon dioxide insufflation during double-contrast barium enema. Br J Radiol 1986;59:190-1. (Pubitemid 16167060)
23. Bretthauer M, Hoff G, Thiis-Evensen E, et al. Air and carbon dioxide volumes insufflated during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:203-6. (Pubitemid 38220268)