Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 14, 2015; 21(2): 593-599
Published online Jan 14, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i2.593
Published online Jan 14, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i2.593
Table 1 Cumulative polyp detection rates by colonoscope and withdrawal method n (%)
| A | B | C | D | P values | |
| Conventional colonoscope, Standard Withdrawal | RetroView™ colonoscope, Standard Withdrawal | RetroView™ colonoscope, Retroflexed Withdrawal | RetroView™ colonoscope, Combination Withdrawal (Standard + Retroflexed) | ||
| Hidden polyps | 7 (12) | 11 (18) | 51 (85) | 56 (93) | A vs B, P = 0.5 |
| (n = 60) | A vs C, P < 0.0001 | ||||
| A vs D, P < 0.0001 | |||||
| Obvious polyps | 21 (84) | 19 (76) | 16 (64) | 24 (96) | A vs B, P = 0.4 |
| (n =25) | A vs C, P = 0.7 | ||||
| A vs D, P < 0.0001 | |||||
| C vs D, P = 0.01 | |||||
| All polyps | 28 (32) | 30 (35) | 67 (79) | 80 (94) | A vs C, P < 0.001 |
| (n =85) | A vs D, P < 0.0001 | ||||
| C vs D, P < 0.01 |
- Citation: McGill SK, Kothari S, Friedland S, Chen A, Park WG, Banerjee S. Short turn radius colonoscope in an anatomical model: Retroflexed withdrawal and detection of hidden polyps. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(2): 593-599
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i2/593.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i2.593