Researchers used CT colonography flythroughs to calculate the amount of mucosa visualized by standard and wide-angle colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy can miss as many as 22% of polyps partly because of its failure to expose mucosa in inaccessible areas (e.g., on the proximal sides of folds and flexures). Researchers recently simulated colonoscopy using computed tomography colonography flythroughs to determine how much colonic mucosa is visualized by colonoscopes with varying angles of view. CT colonography datasets were reviewed from 20 patients (mean age, 64; 40% men) who had symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer and had been recruited for a study of antispasmodics during 2001 and 2002. A computer-generated centering line was used to simulate the path of the colonoscope, and the field of view could be adjusted from 0° to 180°.
The mean total colonic surface area was 2743±759 cm2. A standard 140° angle of view exposed 86.6%±3.3% of the colonic surface area (range, 80%–93%), and a 170° view exposed 92.2%±3.3% (range, 88%–96%). The authors also assessed the Third Eye Retroscope, a catheter that is placed down the instrument channel of the colonoscope and that automatically retroflexes, providing a simultaneous 135° reverse-angle view. The combination of the 140° forward view plus the 135° retroflexed view exposed 98.7%±0.5% of the mucosa (range, 98%–99%). Combining a 170° colonoscope view with the Third Eye Retroscope view did not reveal significantly more surface area (98.9%±0.4%; range, 98%–99%).
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardOlympus Corporation America; Boston Scientific
Speaker’s BureauOlympus
Grant/Research SupportMedtronic; Boston Scientific; Colonary Solutions; Paion Medical; Medivators; Braintree Laboratories
Editorial BoardsWorld Journal of Gastroenterology; The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology; Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Medscape Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics; Annals of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research; Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology; Gastroenterology Research and Practice; GI & Hepatology News; Gastroenterology Report; Clinical Epidemiology Reviews; JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology; GI Journal Watch; Austin Journal of Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesAmerican Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Treasurer); US Multi-Society Task Force (AGA, ACG, ASGE) (Chair)
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardOlympus Corporation America; Boston Scientific
Speaker’s BureauOlympus
Grant/Research SupportMedtronic; Boston Scientific; Colonary Solutions; Paion Medical; Medivators; Braintree Laboratories
Editorial BoardsWorld Journal of Gastroenterology; The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology; Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Medscape Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics; Annals of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research; Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology; Gastroenterology Research and Practice; GI & Hepatology News; Gastroenterology Report; Clinical Epidemiology Reviews; JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology; GI Journal Watch; Austin Journal of Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesAmerican Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Treasurer); US Multi-Society Task Force (AGA, ACG, ASGE) (Chair)
Citation(s):
East JE et al. Surface visualization at CT colonography simulated colonoscopy: Effect of varying field of view and retrograde view. Am J Gastroenterol 2007 Nov; 102:2529.
Comment
Although CT colonography flythrough is potentially a useful approach to evaluating new imaging technologies for colonoscopy, it simulates only a “straight-pullback” technique and not the repeated in-and-out movements which, combined with tip deflection and fold flattening, constitute high-quality colonoscopic withdrawal technique. The modest increase in exposed colonic surface area between the 140° and 170° views explains why researchers in other clinical trials have been unable to document substantially improved polyp detection with wider-angle colonoscopes. As lenses are developed that provide even wider angles of view without marked loss of resolution, evaluation of their performance should be undertaken. Simulations of tip deflection during withdrawal also would be useful. The data from the Third Eye Retroscope look promising, but only if standard colonoscopy is performed with a “straight-pullback” technique — which should never be the case. Thus, clinical trials are required to determine whether adding the Third Eye Retroscope would substantially improve visualization of a forward-viewing 170° colonoscope and particularly whether such gains would offset the cost and inconvenience of using the Third Eye Retroscope.