TY - JOUR
T1 - Usefulness of a colonoscopy cap with an external grid for the measurement of small‐sized colorectal polyps
T2 - A prospective randomized trial
AU - Han, Seul Ki
AU - Kim, Hyunil
AU - Kim, Jin Woo
AU - Kim, Hyun Soo
AU - Kim, Su Yong
AU - Park, Hong Jun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/6/1
Y1 - 2021/6/1
N2 - Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial. The usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy and external grid application on monitor (gCAP) was evaluated for polyp size measurement in this 3‐year, single‐center, single‐blind, randomized trial. Using the endoscopic forceps width as reference, the discrepancy percent (DP), error rate (ER), and measurement time were compared between gCAP and visual estimation (VE) after randomization. ER was calculated within a 20% and 33% limit. From the 111 patients, 280 polyps were measured. The mean polyp sizes were 4.0 ± 1.7 mm and 4.2 ± 1.8 mm with gCAP and VE, respectively (p = 0.368). Compared with that by the forceps method, DP was significantly lower in the gCAP group than in the VE group. Moreover, ER was significantly lower in the gCAP group within its preset limit. The measurement time was 4 s longer in the gCAP group than in the VE group (8.2 ± 4.8 s vs. 4.2 ± 1.5 s; p < 0.001). However, the forceps method lasted 28 s longer than the others. On subgroup analysis by size, gCAP was more accurate for polyp size ≥5 mm. The gCAP method was more accurate for polyp size measurement than VE, especially for polyps ≥5 mm, and was more convenient than the forceps method.
AB - Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial. The usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy and external grid application on monitor (gCAP) was evaluated for polyp size measurement in this 3‐year, single‐center, single‐blind, randomized trial. Using the endoscopic forceps width as reference, the discrepancy percent (DP), error rate (ER), and measurement time were compared between gCAP and visual estimation (VE) after randomization. ER was calculated within a 20% and 33% limit. From the 111 patients, 280 polyps were measured. The mean polyp sizes were 4.0 ± 1.7 mm and 4.2 ± 1.8 mm with gCAP and VE, respectively (p = 0.368). Compared with that by the forceps method, DP was significantly lower in the gCAP group than in the VE group. Moreover, ER was significantly lower in the gCAP group within its preset limit. The measurement time was 4 s longer in the gCAP group than in the VE group (8.2 ± 4.8 s vs. 4.2 ± 1.5 s; p < 0.001). However, the forceps method lasted 28 s longer than the others. On subgroup analysis by size, gCAP was more accurate for polyp size ≥5 mm. The gCAP method was more accurate for polyp size measurement than VE, especially for polyps ≥5 mm, and was more convenient than the forceps method.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114065538&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114065538&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm10112365
DO - 10.3390/jcm10112365
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85114065538
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 10
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 11
M1 - 2365
ER -