Pillcam ESO: A Primer

Frontiers of Robotic Gastroscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Gastroscopes and Technologies

Simple Summary

With the rapid advancements of medical technologies and patients’ higher expectations for precision diagnostic and surgical outcomes, gastroscopy has been increasingly adopted for the detection and treatment of pathologies in the upper digestive tract. Correspondingly, robotic gastroscopes with advanced functionalities, e.g., disposable, dextrous and not invasive solutions, have been developed in the last years. This article extensively reviews these novel devices and describes their functionalities and performance. In addition, the implementation of artificial intelligence technology into robotic gastroscopes, combined with remote telehealth endoscopy services, are discussed. The aim of this paper is to provide a clear and comprehensive view of contemporary robotic gastroscopes and ancillary technologies to support medical practitioners in their future clinical practice but also to inspire and drive new engineering developments.

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract pathology is common worldwide. With recent advancements in robotics, innovative diagnostic and treatment devices have been developed and several translational attempts made. This review paper aims to provide a highly pictorial critical review of robotic gastroscopes, so that clinicians and researchers can obtain a swift and comprehensive overview of key technologies and challenges. Therefore, the paper presents robotic gastroscopes, either commercial or at a progressed technology readiness level. Among them, we show tethered and wireless gastroscopes, as well as devices aimed for UGI surgery. The technological features of these instruments, as well as their clinical adoption and performance, are described and compared. Although the existing endoscopic devices have thus far provided substantial improvements in the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment, there are certain aspects that represent unwavering predicaments of the current gastroenterology practice. A detailed list includes difficulties and risks, such as transmission of communicable diseases (e.g., COVID-19) due to the doctor–patient proximity, unchanged learning curves, variable detection rates, procedure-related adverse events, endoscopists’ and nurses’ burnouts, limited human and/or material resources, and patients’ preferences to choose non-invasive options that further interfere with the successful implementation and adoption of routine screening. The combination of robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as remote telehealth endoscopy services, are also discussed, as viable solutions to improve existing platforms for diagnosis and treatment are emerging.

PillCam ESO versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy in esophageal variceal screening: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

PillCam ESO has been evaluated as a possible strategy to screen patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices, but current guidelines recommend patients undergo screening with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), as it is currently the gold standard. Although recent data have suggested that PillCam ESO may be an acceptable alternative for screening, there is limited data on its cost-effectiveness compared with other screening modalities. This study was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PillCam ESO versus EGD for esophageal variceal screening.

METHODS

Markov models were constructed to compare 2 screening strategies: PillCam ESO versus EGD. In each arm, patients were followed for a time horizon of 15 years in 1-year transition intervals. All variables, transition probabilities, and costs were derived from the medical literature, and sensitivity analyses were performed on the different variables in the model.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis shows that PillCam ESO is associated with an average expected cost of $22,589 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.81 life-years. EGD is associated with an average expected cost of $23,083 and an average expected effectiveness measure of 12.67 life-years. PillCam ESO was found to dominate EGD as a screening strategy for patients with cirrhosis. Sensitivity analyses found several variables within the model to have influential effects on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

PillCam ESO is the dominant strategy for screening patients with cirrhosis for esophageal varices. However, based on a small difference in costs and effectiveness between each strategy, the results would suggest that PillCam ESO and EGD are essentially equivalent strategies.

A study comparing tolerability, satisfaction and acceptance of three different techniques for esophageal endoscopy: sedated conventional, unsedated peroral ultra thin, and esophageal capsule

Three methods of esophagoscopy are available until now: sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. The three methods carry comparable diagnostic accuracy and different complication rates. Although all of them have been found well accepted from patients, no comparative study comprising the three techniques has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the three methods of esophagoscopy regarding tolerability, satisfaction, and acceptance. Twenty patients with large esophageal varices and 10 with gastroesophageal reflux disease were prospectively included. All patients underwent consecutively sedated conventional endoscopy, unsedated ultrathin endoscopy, and esophageal capsule endoscopy. After each procedure, patients completed a seven-item questionnaire. The total positive attitude of patients toward all methods was high. However, statistical analysis revealed the following differences in favor of esophageal capsule endoscopy: (i) total positive attitude has been found higher (chi(2)= 18.2, df = 2, P= 0.00), (ii) less patients felt pain (chi(2)= 6.9, df = 2, P= 0.03) and discomfort (chi(2)= 22.1, df = 2, P= 0.00), (iii) less patients experienced difficulty (chi(2)= 13.7, df = 2, P= 0.01), and (iv) more patients were willing to undergo esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future (chi(2)= 12.1, df = 2, P= 0.002). Esophageal capsule endoscopy was characterized by a more positive general attitude and caused less pain and discomfort. Sedated conventional endoscopy has been found more difficult. More patients would repeat esophageal capsule endoscopy in the future. Patients' total position for all three available techniques for esophageal endoscopy was excellent and renders the observed advantage of esophageal capsule endoscopy over both sedated conventional and unsedated ultrathin endoscopy a statistical finding without a real clinical benefit.