Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy<i>versus</i>cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ai Li,Jing-Ze Yang,Xiao-Xiao Yang,Bing-Cheng Feng,Ming-Ming Zhang,Jun-Yan Qu,Ru-Chen Zhou,Peng Wang,Li-Xiang Li,Xiu-Li Zuo,Yan-Qing Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15155
2020-01-01
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Abstract:Background and Aims Add-on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC). Methods PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference. Results Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta-analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0%vs45.1%;P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95). Conclusion EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?