A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

Background And Aims: Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing.

Methods: We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE.

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for EMR: a randomized controlled trial.

Background And Aims: Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for EMR. SIC-8000 (Eleview; Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available U.S.

Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings.

Background And Study Aims:  Mucosal exposure devices on the colonoscope tip have improved detection. We evaluated detection and procedure times in colonoscopies performed with EndoRings.

Patients And Methods:  We had 14 endoscopists in a university practice trial EndoRings.

High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial.

Background And Aims: Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other.

Methods: We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons.