Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Feb 16, 2013; 5(2): 62-66
Published online Feb 16, 2013. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i2.62
Comparison of Pentax HiLine and Olympus Lucera systems at screening colonoscopy
Alexey Chernolesskiy, David Swain, James C Lee, Gareth D Corbett, Ewen AB Cameron
Alexey Chernolesskiy, David Swain, James C Lee, Gareth D Corbett, Ewen AB Cameron, Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom
Author contributions: Chernolesskiy A and Cameron EAB conceived and designed this study, drafted the article and approved the final version; Swain D contributed to data collection, revised the article for important intellectual content and approved the final version; Lee JC and Corbett GD performed statistical analysis of the data, revised the article for important intellectual content and approved the final version.
Correspondence to: Dr. Ewen AB Cameron, MD, FRCP, Consultant Gastroenterologist, Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Hills Road, Box 293, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom. ewen.cameron@addenbrookes.nhs.uk
Telephone: +44-1223-348718 Fax: +44-1223-348729
Received: June 8, 2012
Revised: September 25, 2012
Accepted: December 22, 2012
Published online: February 16, 2013
Abstract

AIM: To compare the performance characteristics of Pentax HiLine (PHL) (with i-scan) and Olympus Lucera (OL) systems in a screening population.

METHODS: Screening colonoscopies in asymptomatic guaiac faecal occult blood test-positive patients with PHL (n = 58) and OL (n = 425) colonoscopes were analysed. All procedures were performed by a single colonoscopist. PHL used white-light endoscopy (WLE) on scope insertion and contrast/surface enhancement (i-scan 1) on withdrawal, and OL utilised WLE both on insertion and withdrawal. Patient age, sex, instrument insertion and withdrawal times, nurse assessed patient comfort scores, midazolam and fentanyl doses, procedure completion and rates of lesion detection were recorded separately for each group. Comparisons between the groups were made using either Fisher’s exact test (for dichotomous variables) or Mann-Whitney U test (for ordinal and continuous variables).

RESULTS: Colonoscopy completion rates were similar in both groups: 413/425 (97.2%) for OL and 55/58 (94.9%) for PHL (P = 0.24). For complete colonoscopies, the two groups were well matched for age, sex, colonoscope insertion times (mean 11.1 min in OL vs 11.6 min in PHL, P = 0.93) and normal colonoscopy withdrawal times (mean 15.6 min in OL vs 14.7 min in PHL, P = 0.2). Patients in the PHL group experienced a small increase in discomfort (mean patient comfort scores were 0.49 in the OL and 0.95 in the PHL group, P < 0.0001). While Fentanyl doses required were similar between groups (mean 57.5 μg in OL vs 61.4 μg in PHL, P = 0.13), slightly more Midazolam was required in the PHL group (mean 2.1 mg in OL vs 2.4 mg in PHL, P = 0.035). There was no difference in polyp (58% in OL vs 67% in PHL) or adenoma (49% in OL vs 56% in PHL) detection rates between the groups. Neither the total number of polyps and adenomas, nor the characteristics of these (including size, location or presence of advanced features) were different between the two systems.

CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there is no advantage of either colonoscope system in lesion detection.

Keywords: Pentax HiLine, i-scan, Polyp, Adenoma, Colonoscopy