Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy<i>vs</i>conventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

Teshima, Christopher; Zepeda-Gómez, Sergio; Alshankiti, Suliman; Sandha, Gurpal

doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.13178

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…83cm (range, 49-150)) [24,25]. Results from CT scan are closer to the real length of the rectum and colon, compared with the length measured during colonoscopy.…”

Section: Novicesmentioning

confidence: 57%

Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims Patient safety during a colonoscopy highly depends on endoscopist competence. Endoscopic societies have been calling for an objective and regular assessment of the endoscopists, but existing assessment tools are time-consuming and prone to bias. We aimed to develop and gather evidence of validity for a computerized assessment tool delivering automatic and unbiased assessment of colonoscopy based on 3 dimensional coordinates from the colonoscope. Methods Twenty-four participants were recruited and divided into two groups based on experience: 12 experienced and 12 novices. Participants performed twice on a physical phantom model with a standardized alpha loop in the sigmoid colon. Data was gathered directly from the Olympus ScopeGuide system providing XYZ-coordinates along the length of the colonoscope. Five different motor skill measures were developed based on the data, named: Travel Length, Tip Progression, Chase Efficiency, Shaft movement without tip progression, and Looping. Results The experinced had a lower travel length (P < 0.001), tip progression (P < 0.001), chase efficiency (P = 0.001) and looping (P = 0.006), and a higher shaft movement without tip progression (P < 0.001) reaching the cecum compared with the novices. A composite score was developed based on the five measurements to create a combined score of progression, the 3D-Colonoscopy-Progression-Score (3D-CoPS). The 3D-CoPS revealed a significant difference between groups (experienced: 0.495 (SD 0.303) and novices –0.454 (SD 0.707), P < 0.001). Conclusion This study presents a novel, real-time computerized assessment tool for colonoscopy, and strong evidence of validity was gathered in a simulation-based setting. The system shows promising opportunities for automatic, unbiased and continuous assessment of colonoscopy performance.

show abstract

“…83cm (range, 49-150)) [24,25]. Results from CT scan are closer to the real length of the rectum and colon, compared with the length measured during colonoscopy.…”

Section: Novicesmentioning

confidence: 57%

Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Except for cecal intubation time, all other parameters were evaluated using a 10-point scoring system. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain in patients 11 . All patients underwent colonoscopy without sedation and completed the postprocedural questionnaires on the pain scale and their willingness to accept a repeat colonoscopy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain in patients. 11 All patients underwent colonoscopy without sedation and completed the postprocedural questionnaires on the pain scale and their willingness to accept a repeat colonoscopy. Three experienced endoscopists served as evaluators, and the final scores for each item were averaged.…”

Section: Outcome Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of ScopeGuide-Assisted Training in Enhancing Colonoscopy Competence and Reducing Patient Discomfort

Ma,

Gao,

Wang

et al. 2024

Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy &Amp; Percutaneous Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Magnetic Scope Guide Assist (ScopeGuide) in enhancing the procedural competence of endoscopists and reducing patient discomfort during colonoscopy. Methods: This was a retrospective study with 88 trainee participants. The study participants were trained on patients who underwent colonoscopy without anesthesia. Both ScopeGuide-assisted training and conventional training (without ScopeGuide) were utilized for colonoscopy instruction. The outcomes of training were compared, with a particular emphasis on the competency of looping resolution. Results: ScopeGuide-assisted training was superior to conventional training in multiple aspects, including looping resolution (Z=−3.681, P<0.001), pain scores (Z=−4.211, P<0.001), time to reach the cecum (Z=−4.06, P<0.001), willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy (Z=−4.748, P<0.001), competence of positional changes (Z=−4.079, P<0.001), and the effectiveness of assisted compression (Z=−3.001, P=0.003). Further stratified analysis revealed that the ScopeGuide-assisted training mode was more beneficial for junior endoscopists (P<0.05 in all parameters) but not for intermediate endoscopists (P>0.05) and partially beneficial for senior endoscopists (P<0.05 for all parameters except looping resolution). Conclusion: ScopeGuide-assisted training can significantly facilitate endoscopists in resolving loops and reducing patient pain, thereby enhancing their colonoscopy abilities.

show abstract

“…Some variation of a pain measure was used as an outcome across 82.0% (201 of 245) of studies. While 174 of these studies used a pain outcome (eg, 'subject pain score' 30 ), 20 used maximum pain over a period (eg, 'maximum insertion pain score' 31 ) and 7 took the difference between patient pain at a given point and patient pain at a baseline (eg, 'pain difference' 32 ). Other outcomes reported using difference from baseline included anxiety (one study), distension (three studies) and nausea (one study), while the maximum approach was also used for discomfort (three studies).…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

Sue-Chue-Lam

Castelo

Benmessaoud

et al. 2023

BMJ Open Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimsNon-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.ResultsWe screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.ConclusionResearch on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.PROSPERO registration number42020173906.

show abstract

Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopyvsconventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study

Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study

Efficacy of ScopeGuide-Assisted Training in Enhancing Colonoscopy Competence and Reducing Patient Discomfort

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About