Abstract
Background and Aims High quality colonoscopy remains the cornerstone of colon cancer prevention. Studies have shown that generational advances in colonoscopes result in more favorable clinical outcomes. Performance of various endoscopes is determined using objective quality measures. The aim of this study was to compare these measures between two colonoscope platforms.
Methods This study is a single center retrospective study of 3,761 patients undergoing initial screening colonoscopy between November 2013 and May 2020 using two different colonoscope platforms (Fujifilm EC-760R-V/L, n=2287 and Olympus CF and PCF 180 series, n= 1474). The primary outcomes measured were cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate.
Results Procedures completed with the Fujifilm colonoscope had mean cecal insertion times that were 2.01 minutes shorter than procedures completed with Olympus (p<.0001). Procedures completed with Olympus brand colonoscopes had prolonged cecal insertion times (≥10 minutes) nearly three times as often compared to those performed with Fujifilm colonoscopes (p<.0001). Cecal withdrawal times were slightly longer for females performed with Fujifilm colonoscopes, but there was no difference when all procedures were included (p=.09). Procedures completed with Fujifilm colonoscopes had higher adenoma detection rates compared to those completed with Olympus colonoscopes (p<0.001).
Conclusions In this study, Fujifilm colonoscopes outperformed Olympus colonoscopes in screening colonoscopies with statistically and clinically significant shorter cecal insertion times and higher adenoma detection, though both platforms had similar withdrawal times.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript is saved and available.
