一次性结肠镜用于常规检查的性能:先导随机对照非劣效性试验(带视频)。

Xiao-Ling Wang, Bin-Jia Li, Huo-Wang Ye, Bing-Zhou Wang, Chang-Hui Yu, Shao-Heng Zhang, Dan-Dan Jin, Jian-Lin Yu, Xin-Ying Wang
{"title":"一次性结肠镜用于常规检查的性能:先导随机对照非劣效性试验(带视频)。","authors":"Xiao-Ling Wang, Bin-Jia Li, Huo-Wang Ye, Bing-Zhou Wang, Chang-Hui Yu, Shao-Heng Zhang, Dan-Dan Jin, Jian-Lin Yu, Xin-Ying Wang","doi":"10.1111/den.15040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Reusable colonoscopes pose a risk of iatrogenic infections due to improper disinfection and maintenance, prompting the development of disposable colonoscopes. However, direct comparisons between disposable and reusable colonoscopes remain limited. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the technical performance of disposable colonoscopes compared to reusable ones for routine colon examinations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled, noninferiority study was conducted at two endoscopy centers. Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the disposable or reusable colonoscope group. The primary outcome was the successful completion rate of colonoscopy between the groups, with a noninferior margin of -10%. Secondary outcomes included image characteristics, technical maneuverability, colonoscopy performance measures, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 116 patients underwent colonoscopy (58 in each group). The successful completion rate of colonoscopy was 100% in both groups (difference: 0% [95% confidence interval -6.21% to 6.21%]), confirming noninferiority. Although the disposable colonoscope group had lower performance scorings in imaging characteristics, technical maneuverability, and longer operating time compared to the reusable colonoscope group, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, polyp characteristics, or adverse event rate. Additionally, experienced endoscopists achieved proficiency with disposable colonoscopes after approximately 10 cases, requiring minimal training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With further technical advancements, disposable colonoscopes may serve as a safe and viable alternative to reusable colonoscopes for routine colon examinations in certain clinical scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of a disposable colonoscope for routine examination: Pilot randomized controlled noninferiority trial (with video).\",\"authors\":\"Xiao-Ling Wang, Bin-Jia Li, Huo-Wang Ye, Bing-Zhou Wang, Chang-Hui Yu, Shao-Heng Zhang, Dan-Dan Jin, Jian-Lin Yu, Xin-Ying Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/den.15040\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Reusable colonoscopes pose a risk of iatrogenic infections due to improper disinfection and maintenance, prompting the development of disposable colonoscopes. However, direct comparisons between disposable and reusable colonoscopes remain limited. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the technical performance of disposable colonoscopes compared to reusable ones for routine colon examinations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled, noninferiority study was conducted at two endoscopy centers. Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the disposable or reusable colonoscope group. The primary outcome was the successful completion rate of colonoscopy between the groups, with a noninferior margin of -10%. Secondary outcomes included image characteristics, technical maneuverability, colonoscopy performance measures, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 116 patients underwent colonoscopy (58 in each group). The successful completion rate of colonoscopy was 100% in both groups (difference: 0% [95% confidence interval -6.21% to 6.21%]), confirming noninferiority. Although the disposable colonoscope group had lower performance scorings in imaging characteristics, technical maneuverability, and longer operating time compared to the reusable colonoscope group, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, polyp characteristics, or adverse event rate. Additionally, experienced endoscopists achieved proficiency with disposable colonoscopes after approximately 10 cases, requiring minimal training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With further technical advancements, disposable colonoscopes may serve as a safe and viable alternative to reusable colonoscopes for routine colon examinations in certain clinical scenarios.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.15040\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.15040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:可重复使用的结肠镜由于消毒和维护不当存在医源性感染风险,促使一次性结肠镜的发展。然而,一次性结肠镜和可重复使用结肠镜之间的直接比较仍然有限。本初步研究旨在评估一次性结肠镜与可重复使用结肠镜在常规结肠检查中的技术性能。方法:这项随机对照、非劣效性研究在两个内镜中心进行。需要结肠镜检查的患者被随机分配到一次性结肠镜组或可重复使用结肠镜组。主要结果是两组结肠镜检查成功率,非差值为-10%。次要结果包括图像特征、技术可操作性、结肠镜检查性能指标和不良事件。结果:116例患者行结肠镜检查(每组58例)。两组结肠镜检查成功率均为100%(差异为0%[95%可信区间-6.21% ~ 6.21%]),证实非劣效性。与可重复使用结肠镜组相比,一次性结肠镜组在影像学特征、技术可操作性、手术时间等方面得分较低,但在盲肠插管率、息肉检出率、息肉特征、不良事件发生率等方面差异无统计学意义。此外,经验丰富的内窥镜医师在大约10个病例后,只需最少的培训就能熟练使用一次性结肠镜。结论:随着技术的进一步进步,在某些临床情况下,一次性结肠镜可以作为一种安全可行的替代可重复使用的结肠镜进行常规结肠检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of a disposable colonoscope for routine examination: Pilot randomized controlled noninferiority trial (with video).

Objectives: Reusable colonoscopes pose a risk of iatrogenic infections due to improper disinfection and maintenance, prompting the development of disposable colonoscopes. However, direct comparisons between disposable and reusable colonoscopes remain limited. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the technical performance of disposable colonoscopes compared to reusable ones for routine colon examinations.

Methods: This randomized controlled, noninferiority study was conducted at two endoscopy centers. Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the disposable or reusable colonoscope group. The primary outcome was the successful completion rate of colonoscopy between the groups, with a noninferior margin of -10%. Secondary outcomes included image characteristics, technical maneuverability, colonoscopy performance measures, and adverse events.

Results: A total of 116 patients underwent colonoscopy (58 in each group). The successful completion rate of colonoscopy was 100% in both groups (difference: 0% [95% confidence interval -6.21% to 6.21%]), confirming noninferiority. Although the disposable colonoscope group had lower performance scorings in imaging characteristics, technical maneuverability, and longer operating time compared to the reusable colonoscope group, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, polyp characteristics, or adverse event rate. Additionally, experienced endoscopists achieved proficiency with disposable colonoscopes after approximately 10 cases, requiring minimal training.

Conclusion: With further technical advancements, disposable colonoscopes may serve as a safe and viable alternative to reusable colonoscopes for routine colon examinations in certain clinical scenarios.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信