METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all the patients who had undergone colonoscopy at Gastroenterology endoscopy unit, Serdang Hospital from 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2016. Patients who had a history of colorectal cancer, polyp or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Data collected which included patients' demography, indication for colonoscopy, colonoscopy finding, and histopathology results. Data was analysed with SPSS version 16.

RESULTS: Among the 559 patients who had fulfilled the inclusion criteria (68 males, 44 females), 112 patients were found to have at least one polyp giving the polyp detection rate (PDR) of 20% and 168 polypectomies were performed. The PDR among male patients was higher than that of females (22.5% vs 17.1%, p<0.05). The detection rate of polyp was nearly equal in Malays, Chinese, Indians, and Others. The polyps were more common in those of age 40 years old and above (p<0.05), with the mean age of 63.0±1.5 years. The commonest morphology of polyp in our patients was sessile (58%) and majority was medium size (5-9mm). Otherwise, the polyps were commonly found in the distal colon those that in proximal colon (55.3% vs 38.7%, p<0.05). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 19.1% (107/559).

METHODS: In the present prospective study, 426 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopic examination between March 1997 and January 2000, for a variety of bowel symptoms. The examinations were performed by an experienced endoscopist using a standard colonoscope and methylene blue dye spraying technique. Macroscopically, flat adenomas were defined using the criteria proposed by Sawada.

RESULTS: Twenty-nine adenomas were identified in 12 patients, of which 15 were polypoid and 14 were flat, with no depressed lesions. Eight polypoidal lesions and all the flat adenomas contained mild or moderate areas of epithelial dysplasia. Seven severely dysplastic polyps were identified. One Duke's A polypoidal cancer and two advanced carcinomas were also found. All the severely dysplastic lesions and Duke's A carcinomas were found in polyps greater than 10 mm in mean size. The flat adenomas were all less than 5 mm in size.

METHODS: This study was a prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from March 2008 to February 2009 in a tertiary referral hospital at Sydney. The primary end point was cecal intubation time and the secondary endpoint was polyp detection rate. Consecutive cases of total colonoscopy over a 1-year period were recruited. Randomization into either standard colonoscopy (SC) or cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was performed after consent was obtained. For cases randomized to CAC, one of the three sizes of cap was used: D-201-15004 (with a diameter of 15.3 mm), D-201-14304 (14.6 mm) and D-201-12704 (13.0 mm). All of these caps were produced by Olympus Medical Systems, Japan. Independent predictors for faster cecal time and better polyp detection rate were also determined from this study.

RESULTS: There were 200 cases in each group. There was no significant difference in terms of demographic characteristics between the two groups. CAC, when compared to the SC group, had no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 97.0%, P = 0.40) and time (9.94 +/- 7.05 min vs 10.34 +/- 6.82 min, P = 0.21), or polyp detection rate (32.8% vs 31.3%, P = 0.75). On the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in terms of cecal intubation time by trainees (88.1% vs 84.8%, P = 0.40), ileal intubation rate (82.5% vs 79.0%, P = 0.38) or total colonoscopy time (23.24 +/- 13.95 min vs 22.56 +/- 9.94 min, P = 0.88). On multivariate analysis, the independent determinants of faster cecal time were consultant-performed procedures (P < 0.001), male patients (P < 0.001), non-usage of hyoscine (P < 0.001) and better bowel preparation (P = 0.01). The determinants of better polyp detection rate were older age (P < 0.001), no history of previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.04), patients not having esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the same setting (P = 0.003), trainee-performed procedures (P = 0.01), usage of hyoscine (P = 0.01) and procedures performed for polyp follow-up (P = 0.01). The limitations of the study were that it was a single-center experience, no blinding was possible, and there were a large number of endoscopists.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two pictures both with white light (WL) and LCI for 54 consecutive neoplastic polyps 2-20 mm in size. All pictures were evaluated by four endoscopists according to a published polyp visibility score from four (excellent visibility) to one (poor visibility). Additionally, we calculated CD value between each polyp and surrounding mucosa in LCI and WL using an original software.