View clinical trials related to Colorectal Adenomas.
Filter by:A withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes has been considered to be necessary to guarantee the adenoma detection rate and the critical quality criterion of colonoscopy. However, several large observational investigations demonstrated that 9 minutes will be in favor of higher adenoma detection rate and lower risk of interval colorectal cancer, when compared with 6-minute withdrawal. Meanwhile, a few studies also indicated that no significant benefit were observed in longer withdrawal time. Up to now, no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to give a definitive conclusion. Therefore, we performed a multicenter, prospective, randomized Controlled trial to compare adenoma detection rate of 6-minute and 9-minute withdrawal in colonoscopy.
In recent years, Berberine hydrochloride has been reported to inhibit cancer cell proliferation and to be cytotoxic towards cancer cells. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis have a nearly 100 percent risk of colorectal cancer. The aim of this study is to investigate the chemopreventive effects Berberine hydrochlorid on the regression of colorectal adenomas.
Experimental studies in animals and observational studies in humans suggest that fusobacterium nucleatum is associates with stages of colorectal neoplasia development, and Berberine Hydrochloride could rescue Fusobacterium nucleatum-induced colorectal tumorigenesis by modulating the tumor microenvironment. Whether regular Berberine Hydrochloride use may decrease the risk of colorectal adenomas, the precursors to most colorectal cancers is worth to further study.
Comparison of Endocuff-assisted, Cap-assisted and Standard colonoscopy for assessment of the adenoma detection rate (ADR)
Insufflation of the colon, usually with room air, is necessary to distend the lumen for exploration. Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation instead of room air insufflation (AI) has been shown to decrease symptoms of abdominal pain or discomfort during the procedure and particularly during the following 24 hours. CO2 is is rapidly absorbed by the intestinal mucosa and exhaled through respiration. AI colonoscopy has usually been the reference standard to compare colonoscopy using CO2 insufflation. In two recent articles AI was compared to either CO2 insufflation and Water-aided colonoscopy (WAC), which entails infusion of water to facilitate insertion to the cecum. WAC can be categorized broadly in Water Immersion (WI) and Water Exchange (WE). In WI water is infused during the insertion phase of colonoscopy, with removal of infused water predominantly during withdrawal. Occasional use of insufflation may be allowed. WE entails complete exclusion of insufflation, removal of residual colonic air pockets and feces, and suction of infused water predominantly during insertion to minimize distention. During the withdrawal phase insufflation is used to distend the colonic lumen. In the WAC arms of the two mentioned articles the insertion method used was WI, with infusion of water at room temperature or at 37°C. During withdrawal, air insufflation or either air or CO2 insufflation were employed. Compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WI (using room air insufflation or CO2 insufflation during withdrawal) were effective in both studies in decreasing sedation requirement, pain and tolerance scores, with patients' higher willingness to repeat the procedure. Until now no direct comparison has been made within a single study about pain score during colonoscopy using AI, CO2 insufflation, WI/CO2, WE/CO2, WI/AI and WE/AI. In this study we test the hypothesis that, compared to AI, CO2 insufflation and WAC/CO2-AI methods will decrease pain score during colonoscopy, with reduction of sedation requirement, and that WE will achieve the best result. This comparative study has also the aim to test the respective peculiarities of each method.
Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in diagnostic patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
Water-aided method for colonoscopy can be broadly subdivided into two major categories. Water Immersion (WI), characterized by suction removal of the infused water predominantly during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy, and Water Exchange (WE), characterized by suction removal of infused water predominantly during the insertion phase of colonoscopy. Several studies showed that WE significantly reduces pain compared to WI and colonoscopy with traditional air insufflation (AI), increases the number of unsedated procedures and adenoma detection rate (ADR), in particular proximal ADR. This randomized controlled trial will be a direct comparison of Air Insufflation, Water Immersion and Water Exchange to test the hypothesis that WAC (particularly WE) would significantly decrease pain score during colonoscopy in average-risk screening patients. Several other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed.
Colonoscopy is commonly used in screening for colorectal cancer. A refined technique of colonoscopy involving the use of water as the sole modality to aid colonoscope insertion, water exchange, has been described in recent research papers to decrease patient discomfort and pain, and to reduce the need for sedation during colonoscopy when compared with standard air insufflation. Carbon dioxide insufflation has been described to decrease patient discomfort after colonoscopy. No randomized trial has so far compared the use of water exchange to carbon dioxide insufflation. Our hypothesis is that water exchange inflicts less discomfort to patients undergoing colonoscopy than carbon dioxide insufflation. Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy in two centers in Norway, one center in Poland and one center in The Netherlands will be enrolled and randomized to examination of either of the two methods.