Magnetic endoscopic imaging versus standard colonoscopy in a routine colonoscopy setting: a randomized, controlled trial

Acquiring and maintaining competency in gastrointestinal endoscopy

“…There is evidence to suggest that magnetic imagers reduce the duration of loop formation as well as number of loop straightening attempts in trainees [26]. The use of the scope imager has also been associated with a significantly higher cecal intubation rate and less dependence on the supervisor to complete the procedure [27].…”

Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging: A Useful Ally in Colonoscopy

“…One of the larger RCTs on MEI (n=810) did however reveal that in less experienced endoscopists the caecal intubation rate was significantly better in those using MEI compared to standard colonoscopy [11]. In addition the need for assistance with the procedure from a senior colleague was significantly less in the group utilising MEI (19% v 40%, p=0.02).…”

Magnetic endoscope imaging colonoscope: a new modality for hypothesis testing in unsedated colonoscopy

“…In a recent RCT of patients receiving on-demand sedation, 810 consecutive patients (MEI, 419; standard, 391) were evaluated. 5 For inexperienced endoscopists, the cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the MEI group (78% vs 56%, P ϭ .02) but not for experienced endoscopists (94% vs 96%). Inexperienced endoscopists required less assistance from a senior colleague when they used MEI (19% vs 40%, P ϭ .02).…”

“…In unsedated veterans who could receive sedation on demand, these authors confirmed the previous RCT findings of the absence of an effect of MEI in attenuating discomfort during colonoscopy by experienced colonoscopists. 2,3,5 They also reported that in an intention-to-treat analysis, 80% (64/80) of subjects in the standard colonoscope arm and 79% (63/80) in the MEI arm were willing to repeat future unsedated colonoscopy (P ϭ not significant). 7 Pain associated with loop formation is an important modern challenge of screening colonoscopy, limiting cecal intubation to 67% to 83% in unsedated patients worldwide.…”