方法

我们连续回顾了54个2-20毫米大小的肿瘤息肉的两张白光（WL）和LCI图片。所有图片均由四位内镜医师根据公布的息肉可见性评分进行评估，评分从4分（可见性极佳）到1分（可见性差）。此外，我们使用原始软件计算了LCI和白光图片中每个息肉和周围黏膜之间的CD值。

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.

结果

LCI组的平均息肉可见性评分（3.11± 1.05）显著高于白光组（2.50 ± 1.09，P < 0.001）。LCI组内镜医师可见性差（息肉可见性评分1分和2分）的比率（27.9%）明显低于白光组（55.6%，P＜0.001）。在CD分析方面，LCI组的CD值明显高于白光组（3.3±13.9 vs. 20.7± 13.6，P < 0.001）。在亚组分析中，LCI组24个小息肉（≤5mm）的息肉可见性评分和CD值高于白光组（3.29±0.99 vs. 2.12±0.99，P < 0.001；31.6 ± 12.8 vs. 14.7±7.6, P < 0.001）。此外，任何位置、大小、组织学和形态学的息肉，LCI组的息肉可见性评分和CD值均高于白光组。

Results: The mean polyp visibility scores of LCI (3.11 ± 1.05) were significantly higher than those of WL (2.50 ± 1.09, P < 0.001). The ratio of an endoscopist's poor visibility (polyp visibility scores 1 and 2) was significantly lower in LCI (27.9%) than WL (55.6%, P < 0.001). With respect to the CD analysis, the CD value of LCI was significantly higher than that of WL (33.3 ± 13.9 vs. 20.7 ± 13.6, P < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, the polyp visibility scores and CD values of LCI about 24 diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) were higher than those of WL (3.29 ± 0.99 vs. 2.12 ± 0.99, P < 0.001; 31.6 ± 12.8 vs. 14.7 ± 7.6, P < 0.001). Additionally, the polyp visibility scores and CD values of LCI for polyps with any location, size, histology, and morphology were significantly higher than those of WL.