Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Amélioration des performances de la coloscopie : quels sont les outils réellement utiles?

Improvement of performance during colonoscopy: Which tools are really useful?

  • Videodigest
  • Published:
Acta Endoscopica

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

Références

  1. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1106–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectalcancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1095–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of backto-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008;40:284–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013;45:20–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, Ragunath K. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011;43:499–505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bond A, O’Toole P, Fisher G, et al. New-Generation High-Definition Colonoscopes Increase Adenoma Detection when Screening a Moderate-Risk Population for Colorectal Cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2017;16:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jrebi NY, Hefty M, Jalouta T, et al. High-definition colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate. Surg Endosc 2017;31:78–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pioche M, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K, Andrisani G, et al. It Takes Two Colonoscope Generations to Significantly Reduce Adenoma Miss Rates:Results from a Prospective Randomized Tandem Study. UEGW 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pohl J, Schneider A, Vogell H, et al. Pancolonic chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine versus standard colonoscopy for detection of neoplastic lesions: a randomised two-centre trial. Gut 2011;60:485–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pasha SF, Leighton JA, Das A, et al. Comparison of the yield and miss rate of narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:363–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:604–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rastogi A, Keighley J, Singh V, et al. High accuracy of narrow band imaging without magnification for the real-time characterization of polyp histology and its comparison with high-definition white light colonoscopy: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:2422–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M, et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:419–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuruvilla N, Paramsothy R, Gill R, Selby WS, Remedios ML, Kaffes AJ. A prospective dual-center proof-of-principle study evaluating the incremental benefit of narrow-band imaging with a fixed zoom function in real-time prediction of polyp histology. Can we resect and discard? Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:362–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:353–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hassan C, Senore C, Radaelli F, et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut 2016;[in press].

    Google Scholar 

  19. Papanikolaou IS, Apostolopoulos P, Tziatzios G, et al. Lower adenoma miss rate with FUSE vs. conventional colonoscopy with proximal retroflexion: a randomized back-to-back trial. Endoscopy 2017;49:468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:155–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:480–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen J, Grunwald D, Grossberg LB, Sawhney MS. The Effect of Right Colon Retroflexion on Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2016; [in press].

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ng SC, Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, et al. The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in polyp detection and cecal intubation: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1165–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy- a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PloS One 2014;9:e114267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A, et al. Novel endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol 2015;49:413–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van Doorn SC, van der Vlugt M, Depla A, et al. Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Gut 2015;[in press].

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Palma GD, Giglio MC, Bruzzese D, et al. Cap cuff-assisted colonoscopy versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection: a randomized back-to-back study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; [in press].

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bhattacharyya R, Chedgy F, Kandiah K, et al. Endocuff-assisted vs. standard colonoscopy in the fecal occult blood test-based UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (E-cap study): a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017;[in press]

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chin M, Karnes W, Jamal MM, et al. Use of the Endocuff during routine colonoscopy examination improves adenoma detection: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:9642–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dik VK, Gralnek IM, Segol O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, tandem evaluation of EndoRings colonoscopy—results of the CLEVER study. Endoscopy 2015;47:1151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leung CW, Kaltenbach T, Soetikno R, et al. Water immersion versus standard colonoscopy insertion technique: randomized trial shows promise for minimal sedation. Endoscopy 2010;42:557–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, et al. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (5):CD009863.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cadoni S, Falt P, Rondonotti E, et al. Water exchange for screening colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2017;49:456–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hsieh YH, Tseng CW, Hu CT, et al. Prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy using water exchange, water immersion, and air insufflation. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:192–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lesne A, Rouquette O, Touzet S, et al. Adenoma detection with blue-water infusion colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2017;[in press].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’hépatogastroentérologie et endoscopie, hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 20 rue Leblanc, Paris, F-75015, France

    G. Rahmi, G. Perrod & C. Cellier

Authors
  1. G. Rahmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Perrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Cellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Rahmi.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahmi, G., Perrod, G. & Cellier, C. Amélioration des performances de la coloscopie : quels sont les outils réellement utiles?. Acta Endosc 47, 252–257 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10190-017-0611-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10190-017-0611-4

Search

Navigation