A 3D-printed cap with sideoptics for colonoscopy: a randomized ex vivo study

Abstract

Background Adequate polyp detection is crucial to colonoscopy; however, detection can be impaired. In particular, flat polyps located behind folds or near the colonic flexures appear to be a problem. We present a cheap and easily adjustable 3D-printed tool to enhance the view of a standard colonoscope using additional commercially available sideoptics.

Materials and methods A cap adjustable to a standard endoscope was printed by a 3 D printer and had two microcameras fixed to offer two additional views. Fourteen endoscopists performed one standard and one sideoptic-enhanced colonoscopy in a randomized order. Flat lesions were simulated in an endoscopy training model. Time for withdrawal was measured, along with the number of flat lesions detected.

Results Withdrawal time did not differ significantly between standard and sideoptic-enhanced colonoscopy (329 vs. 389 seconds). The median number of detected flat lesions per endoscopic examination was significantly higher using the sideoptic tool (8 vs. 6.5; P = 0.001).

Conclusions A 3D-printed sideoptic-enhanced cap including two microcameras may be a cheap, easy, and feasible add-on to improve adenoma detection rates in routine colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Garborg K, Holme Ø, Løberg M. et al. Current status of screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 1963-1972
• 2 Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS. et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. NEJM 2013; 369: 1106-1114
• 3 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 4 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
• 5 Barclay R, Vicari J, Doughty A. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 6 Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M. et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Clin Endosc 2011; 73: 1207-1214
• 7 Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z. et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 353-360
• 8 Rubin M, Lurie L, Bose K. et al. Expanding the view of a standard colonoscope with the Third Eye(^®) Panoramic(™) cap. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 10683-10687
• 9 Gralnek IM. Emerging technological advancements in colonoscopy: Third Eye^® Retroscope^® and Third Eye^® Panoramic^™, Fuse^® Full Spectrum Endoscopy® colonoscopy platform, Extra-Wide-Angle-View colonoscope, and NaviAidTM G-EYETM balloon colonoscope. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 223-231
• 10 Konda V, Chauhan SS, Abu Dayyeh BK. et al. Endoscopes and devices to improve colon polyp detection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1122-1129
• 11 van Doorn SC, van der Vlugt M, Depla A. et al. Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Gut
• 12 Gillen S, Gröne J, Knödgen F. et al. Educational and training aspects of new surgical techniques: experience with the endoscopic--laparoscopic interdisciplinary training entity (ELITE) model in training for a natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) approach to appendectomy. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2376-2382
• 13 DeMarco DC, Odstrcil E, Lara LF. et al. Impact of experience with a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rates and withdrawal times during colonoscopy: the Third Eye Retroscope study group. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 542-550
• 14 Hassan C, Senore C, Radaelli F. et al. Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme. Gut
• 15 Uraoka T, Tanaka S, Oka S. et al. Feasibility of a novel colonoscope with extra-Wide angle of view: a clinical study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 444-448