Full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV) in a high-risk population

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the diagnostic performance of Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) compared to a conventional standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFV). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and mean adenoma detection. Secondary outcome was feasibility of FUSE opposed to SFV.

Materials and methods: Consecutive patients participating in the Danish colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme were prospectively included in the study (n = 205). Demographic and health-related characteristics were obtained. Following procedural parameters were recorded: completion rate, caecal intubation time, fentanyl and midazolam sedation, CRC detection, ADR, diverticulosis, bowel preparation, patient discomfort and endoscopist difficulty rating. Participants underwent FUSE colonoscopy on days when the FUSE system was available, while the remaining participants had SFV. All colonoscopies were performed by two trained endoscopists.

Results: A total of 109 patients were included in the FUSE group and 106 in the SFV group. Groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Completion rate was 83.5% and 93.4% in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). Caecal intubation time was 11.4 ± 6.7 min versus 9.1 ± 6.2 min in the FUSE and SFV groups (p = .040). ADR was 67.0% and 59.6% (p = .097), while the mean adenoma detection was 1.79 and 1.38 (p = .022) in the FUSE and SFV groups. Endoscopists reported increased difficulty rating with FUSE compared to SFV (p > .001).

Conclusion: FUSE colonoscopy provides a higher mean adenoma detection and there is tendency toward higher ADR compared to SFV in a high-risk population. Nonetheless, FUSE colonoscopy has a lower completion rate, longer caecal intubation time and a higher difficulty rating from an endoscopist point of view.

Keywords:

• Full spectrum endoscopy
• FUSE
• standard forward viewing endoscope
• colorectal cancer screening
• colonoscopy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.