Motorized spiral colonoscopy: a first single-center feasibility trialTRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Study NCT03000361 at clinicaltrials.gov
submitted 13 June 2017
accepted after revision 16 October 2017
18 December 2017 (eFirst)
Background Cecal intubation rate represents a key procedural quality parameter in diagnostic colonoscopy. However, even experienced investigators report 10 % of all colonoscopies to be difficult and intubation of the cecum is sometimes impossible. A recently developed novel motorized spiral endoscope might potentially overcome some limitations of standard colonoscopy by actively pleating the bowel onto the endoscope. The study aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of motorized spiral colonoscopy (MSC) for diagnostic colonoscopy.
Methods 30 consecutive patients with an indication for diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled in a proof-of-concept single-center trial.
Results 13 men and 17 women (mean age 68.9 years, range 30 – 90) were enrolled; 43.3 % had diverticula. Mean procedure time was 20.8 min (range 11.4 – 55.3). Cecal intubation rate was 96.7 %. One incomplete colonoscopy occurred because of an unexpected postinflammatory stricture. Adenoma detection rate was 46.6 %. No severe adverse events occurred.
Conclusions Results indicate that MSC is safe and effective for diagnostic colonoscopy. It potentially offers advantages in terms of ease and it may facilitate therapeutic interventions.
* These authors contributed equally.
- 1 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-35
- 2 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
- 3 Pullens HJ, Siersema PD. Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 571-583
- 4 Wanders LK, van Doorn SC, Fockens P. et al. Quality of colonoscopy and advances in detection of colorectal lesions: a current overview. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9: 417-430
- 5 Marshall JB, Barthel JS. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39: 518-520
- 6 Waye JD. Difficult colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 9: 676-678
- 7 Messer I, May A, Manner H. et al. Prospective, randomized, single-center trial comparing double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel disorders. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 241-249
- 8 Schembre DB, Ross AS, Gluck MN. et al. Spiral overtube-assisted colonoscopy after incomplete colonoscopy in the redundant colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 515-519
- 9 Neuhaus H, Beyna T, Schneider M. et al. Novel motorized spiral enteroscopy: first clinical case. VideoGIE 2016; 1: 32-33
- 10 Beyna T, Schneider M, Arvanitakis M. et al. OP002: Novel motorized spiral endoscopy: A two-center prospective clinical trial. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 7-28
- 11 Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
- 12 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bujajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
- 13 Hassan C, Senore C, Radaelli F. et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut 2016; 65: 1-7
- 14 Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T. et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward viewing examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 415-422
- 15 Cheng WB, Koser MA, Kanagaratnam S. et al. Overview of upcoming advances in colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 1-6