ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Analizar la utilidad y seguridad de la maniobra de retrovisión en ciego y colon realizada en una serie de 20 pacientes. Sede: Centro Hospitalario del Estado Mayor Presidencial y Hospital Ángeles Lomas. Tipo de estudio: Prospectivo, comparativo, transversal y observacional. Análisis estadístico: Por porcentajes. Pacientes y método: Veinte pacientes con indicación de colonoscopia. Las variables evaluadas fueron: factibilidad de realizar la maniobra, complicaciones presentadas y comparación de lesiones localizadas con la endoscopia convencional y por medio de la retrovisión. Resultados: Edad promedio de 53 años (33 a 72 años); 12 mujeres y 8 varones. La maniobra de retrovisión fue factible en l6 de las colonoscopias (80%). La complicación más frecuentemente observada fue erosión leve de la mucosa por fricción de la punta del endoscopio en el ciego, en cuatro enfermos (20%), lo que no ameritó ningún tratamiento. No hubo perforación ni sangrado en caso alguno. La maniobra de retrovisión aportó un diagnóstico endoscópico adicional en tres enfermos (15%), siendo dos pólipos pequeños y un divertículo del ciego. Conclusiones: La maniobra de retrovisión en ciego fue útil y segura, ya que permitió diagnosticar un 15% más de lesiones que no fueron observadas antes de realizar la maniobra; esto sin presentar complicaciones.
Objective: To analyze the usefulness and safety of the retrograde-viewing maneuver in the cecum and colon performed in a series of 20 patients. Setting: Third level health care center. Type of study: Prospective, comparative, cross-sectional, and observational. Statistical analysis: Percentages. Patients and method: Twenty patients with indication for colonoscopy. Assessed variables were: feasibility of the maneuver. Complications and comparison of injuries localized with conventional endoscopy and by means of the retrograde-viewing device. Results: Average age was 53 years (33 to 72 years), 12 women and 8 men. The retrograde viewing maneuver was feasible in 16 of the colonoscopies (80%). The most frequent complication observed was slight erosion of the mucosa due to the friction caused by the tip of the endoscope in the cecum in four patients (20%), which did not need any treatment. There was no perforation or bleeding in any case. The retrograde-viewing maneuver provided an additional endoscopic diagnosis in three patients (15%), being these small polyps and a diverticulum in the cecum. Conclusions: Retrograde-viewing in the cecum was useful and safe, as it allowed to diagnose 15% more lesions than those observed before performing the maneuver; without presenting complications.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To determine which patients might benefit most from retrograde viewing during colonoscopy through subset analysis of randomized, controlled trial data. METHODS: The Third Eye® Retroscope® Randomized Clinical Evaluation (TERRACE) was a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a retrograde-viewing auxiliary imaging device that is used during colonoscopy to provide a second video image which allows viewing of areas on the proximal aspect of haustral folds and flexures that are difficult to see with the colonoscope's forward view. We performed a post-hoc analysis of the TERRACE data to determine whether certain subsets of the patient population would gain more benefit than others from use of the device. Subjects were patients scheduled for colonoscopy for screening, surveillance or diagnostic workup, and each underwent same-day tandem examinations with standard colonoscopy (SC) and Third Eye colonoscopy (TEC), randomized to SC followed by TEC or vice versa. RESULTS: Indication for colonoscopy was screening in 176/345 subjects (51.0%), surveillance after previous polypectomy in 87 (25.2%) and diagnostic workup in 82 (23.8%). In 4 subjects no indication was specified. Previously reported overall results had shown a net additional adenoma detection rate (ADR) with TEC of 23.2% compared to SC. Relative risk (RR) of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC as the initial procedure was 1.92 (P = 0.029). Post-hoc subset analysis shows additional ADRs for TEC compared to SC were 4.4% for screening, 35.7% for surveillance, 55.4% for diagnostic and 40.7% for surveillance and diagnostic combined. The RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC was 1.11 (P = 0.815) for screening, 3.15 (P = 0.014) for surveillance, 8.64 (P = 0.039) for diagnostic and 3.34 (P = 0.003) for surveillance and diagnostic combined. Although a multivariate Poisson regression suggested gender as a possibly significant factor, subset analysis showed that the difference between genders was not statistically significant. Age, bowel prep quality and withdrawal time did not significantly affect the RR of missing adenomas with SC vs TEC. Mean sizes of adenomas detected with TEC and SC were similar at 0.59 cm and 0.56 cm, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSION: TEC allows detection of significantly more adenomas compared to SC in patients undergoing surveillance or diagnostic workup, but not in screening patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01044732).