Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 7, 2017; 23(21): 3784-3796
Published online Jun 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i21.3784
Table 3 New endoscopes and colonoscopy performance improvement
Ref.Study designTechnologyComparatorNIndicationAge (yr), rangeCIR (%)PDR (%)ADR (%)APCPMR (%)AMR (%)
Gralnek et al[23], 2013Single-center prospective,FUSENone50Mixed18-70100%--N/AN/AN/A
Gralnek et al[25], 2014Multicenter, prospective, randomized, tandemFUSESFV101 vs 96Mixed18-7098.0% vs 98.9%-134.0% vs 28.0%10.64 vs 0.3310%vs 43%7% vs 41%
Papanikolaou et al[26], 2017Multicenter, prospective randomized, tandemFUSESFV+R107 vs 108Mixed41-80---10.61 vs 0.5013.0% vs 33.5%10.9% vs 33.7%
Hassan et al[29], 2016Multicenter, prospective, randomized parallelFUSESFV328vs 330Screening after (+) FIT50-6992.1% vs 93.3%-43.6% vs 45.5%0.81 vs 0.85N/AN/A
Song et al[24], 2016Singe-center retrospective,FUSENone262Mixed22-80100%54.20%36.3%0.66N/AN/A
Rath et al[31], 2015Multicenter, prospective, parallelFUSESFV90---36% vs 24.0%--N/AN/A
Manes et al[27], 2016 AbstractSingle-center prospective, parallelFUSESFV264 vs 265Mixed18-85-56.6% vs 44.3%35.5% vs 29.9%-N/AN/A
Roepstorff et al[28], 2016 AbstractSingle-center prospective, parallelFUSESFV109 vs 106Screening-83.4% vs 93.4%N/A67.0% vs 59.6%1.8 vs 1.4N/AN/A
Leong et al[30], 2016 AbstractSingle-center, prospective, randomized tandemFUSESFV25 vs 27IBD-----225.0% vs 71.4%-
Uraoka et al[33], 2015Multicenter, feasibilityEWAVCNone47Mixed-100%--0.64N/AN/A
Uraoka et al[34], 2013 AbstractMulticenter, prospective, randomized parallelEWAVCSFV316Mixed---50.6% vs 45.6%1.1 vs 1.0N/AN/A
Gluck et al[35], 2016Single-center, prospective, tandemAer-O-ScopeSFV56Screening27-7298.2% vs 98.2%-21.4% vs 25.0%-12.5% for Aer-O-Scope-