Background/Aims: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel aerosol-exposure protection (AP) mask in preventing coronavirus disease in healthcare professionals during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and to evaluate its clinical feasibility. Methods: In Study 1, three healthy volunteers volitionally coughed with and without the AP mask in a cleanroom. Microparticles were visualized and counted with a specific measurement system and compared with and without the AP mask. In Study 2, 30 patients underwent endoscopic resection with the AP mask covering the face, and the SpO2 was measured throughout the procedure. Results: In Study 1, the median number of microparticles in volunteers 1, 2, and 3 with and without the AP mask was 8.5 and 110.0, 7.0 and 51.5, and 8.0 and 95.0, respectively (p<0.01). Using the AP mask, microparticles were reduced by approximately 92%. The median distances of microparticle scattering without the AP mask were 60, 0, and 68 in volunteers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Study 2, the mean SpO2 was 96.3%, and desaturation occurred in three patients. Conclusion The AP mask could provide protection from aerosol exposure and can be safely used for endoscopy in clinical practice.

Background/Aims: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of screening colonoscopies performed by trainees is often lower than that of colonoscopies performed by experts. The effcacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) in adenoma detection is well documented, especially that of CACs performed by trainees. Endocuff, a new endoscopic cap, is reportedly useful for adenoma detection; however, no trials have compared the effcacy of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and CAC conducted by trainees. Therefore, the present study retrospectively compared the effcacy between EAC and CAC in trainees. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study involving 305 patients who underwent either EAC or CAC performed by three trainees between January and December 2018. We evaluated the ADR, mean number of adenomas detected per patient (MAP), cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and occurrence of complications between the EAC and CAC groups. Results: The ADR was significantly higher in the EAC group than in the CAC group (54.3% vs. 37.3%, p=0.019), as was the MAP (1.36 vs. 0.74, p=0.003). No significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the cecal intubation rate or cecal intubation time. No major complications occurred in either group. Conclusions Our results suggest that EAC exhibits increased ADR and MAP compared to CAC when performed by trainees.