RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Effect of combined cap-assisted, water-aided, and prone position colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A retrospective study JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.10.23.20218263 DO 10.1101/2020.10.23.20218263 A1 Jihwan Ko A1 Byung Gu Ko A1 Seong Ho Han A1 Hyung Wook Kim YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/27/2020.10.23.20218263.abstract AB Background The efficacy of cap-assisted, water-aided, and 12 o’clock-prone position colonoscopy as individual techniques for adenoma detection is well documented. However, the efficacy of the combination of the three colonoscopy methods is unclear. Therefore, the present study aimed to retrospectively compare the efficacy between combined-method colonoscopy (CMC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).Methods and Findings A total of 746 patients who underwent either CMC or SC, performed by two board-certified gastroenterologists between December 2019 and March 2020 at Baekyang Jeil Internal Medicine Clinic, were retrospectively evaluated. We evaluated polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and mean number of adenomas detected per procedure (MAP). Statistical analysis for comparison between the groups was performed using the Student’s t-test, and ADR and PDR were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. The study population was predominantly women (55.4%). The mean patient age (standard deviation) was 62.87 (±7.83) years. There was no significant difference in sex, number of fecal occult blood test-positive patients, and age between the two groups. The PDR, ADR, and proximal colon MAP were significantly higher in the CMC group than in the SC group (PDR: 59.8% vs. 84.9%, p < 0.001; ADR: 49.2% vs. 70.1%, p < 0.001; proximal colon MAP: 0.55 vs. 1.24, p < 0.001).Conclusions Compared with SC, CMC increases PDR, ADR, and MAP, especially proximal colon MAP. Therefore, CMC may be more useful than SC in clinical settings. This study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of the three techniques in combination.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital (IRB number: 05-2020-126) and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.ADRAdenoma detection rateCMCCombined method colonoscopyFOBTFecal occult blood testIRBInstitutional review boardMAPMean number of adenomas detected per procedurePDRPolyp detection rateSCStandard colonoscopy