Magnetic endoscopic imaging vs standard colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Magnetic endoscopic imaging in pediatric colonoscopy: A positive impact on procedure completion rate and procedure times

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) on pediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

We analyzed demographics, procedure completion, procedure times, complications, and whether or not MEI was used for all colonoscopies between April 27, 2023, and January 18, 2024. MEI was available for every case but used at the endoscopist's discretion. Attendings were surveyed on the frequency and duration of interventions during fellow-performed colonoscopies.

RESULTS

We analyzed 310 colonoscopies, 113 (36%) of which used MEI. The average patient age was 13.8 years (range 5 months to 23 years). For the aggregate sample and attending-performed cases, there were fewer males in the groups that used MEI (p < 0.01). There were no other statistically significant differences in demographics or procedure indication when MEI was used. Terminal ileum (TI) intubation rate was higher when MEI was used in the aggregate sample (p = 0.02) and for fellow-performed cases (p = 0.04). TI intubation times and total procedure times were quicker when MEI was used in the aggregate sample and in both strata of attending-performed cases and fellow-performed cases (p < 0.001). One complication was reported in an attending-performed case that did not use MEI. Of the 145 fellow-performed procedures, 98 (68%) had completed surveys, 36 (36%) of which used MEI. There was no statistically significant difference in the number (p = 0.89) or duration (p = 0.96) of attending interventions when MEI was used.

CONCLUSION

MEI use was associated with higher TI intubation rates, faster TI intubation, and shorter total procedure times. MEI may be a valuable adjunctive tool for pediatric endoscopists.

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

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.

Causes of intraprocedural discomfort in colonoscopy: a review and practical tips

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure in the United Kingdom and the gold standard for diagnosis and therapy in the gastrointestinal tract. Increased levels of pain during colonoscopy have been associated with reduced completion rates and difficulties in maintaining attendance for repeat procedures. Multiple factors play a role in causing discomfort intra-procedurally: patient factors, such as gender, anatomy and pre-procedure anxiety; operator factors, such as patient position and level of experience and other factors, such as bowel preparation and total procedure time. A literature search was performed to identify papers that explained how patient, operator and endoscopy factors influenced pain and discomfort in endoscopy. A further search then also identified papers describing solutions to pain and discomfort that have been explored. After review of the literature, key methods are selected and discussed in this paper. Solutions and aids that can resolve and improve pain and discomfort include endoscopic methods such as variable stiffness and ultrathin scopes. Operator improvements in techniques and ergonomics alongside the use of newer technologies such as propelled endoscopy, computer-assisted endoscopy and task distraction. To improve patient experience and outcomes, the investigation and research into improving techniques to reduce pain is crucial. This review aims to identify the modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with intra-procedural discomfort during colonoscopy. We discuss established methods of improving pain during colonoscopy, in addition to newer technologies to mitigate associated discomfort.

Does Manual Abdominal Pressure During Colonoscopy Put Endoscopy Staff and Patients at Risk? Experiences of Endoscopy Nurses and Technicians

Endoscopy staff suffer work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate greater than or comparable to nurses and technicians in other subspecialities, which may be attributable to the widespread use of manual pressure and repositioning during colonoscopy. In addition to negatively impacting staff health and job performance, colonoscopy-related musculoskeletal disorder injuries may also signal potential risks to patient safety. To assess the prevalence of staff injury and perceived patient harm relating to the use of manual pressure and repositioning techniques during colonoscopy, 185 attendees of a recent national meeting of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates were asked to recall experiencing injuries to themselves or observing injuries to other staff or patients during colonoscopy. A majority of respondents (84.9%, n = 157) reported either experiencing or observing staff injury, whereas 25.9% ( n = 48) reported observing patient complications. Among respondents who perform manual repositioning and apply manual pressure during colonoscopy (57.3%, n = 106), 85.8% ( n = 91) reported experiencing musculoskeletal disorders from performing these tasks; 81.1% ( n = 150) reported no awareness of colonoscopy-specific ergonomics policies at their facility. Results highlight the relationship between the physical job requirements of endoscopy nurses and technicians, staff musculoskeletal disorders, and patient complications, and suggest that implementation of staff safety protocols may benefit patients as well as endoscopy staff.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

RESULTS

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

CONCLUSION

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Progress and prospects of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science. As a new technological science, it mainly develops and expands human intelligence through the research of intelligence theory, methods and technology. In the medical field, AI has bright application prospects (for example: imaging, diagnosis and treatment). The exploration of robotic gastroscopy and colonoscopy systems is not only a bold attempt, but also an inevitable trend of AI in the development of digestive endoscopy in the future. Based on the current research findings, this article summarizes the research progress of colonoscopy, and looking forward for the application of AI in colonoscopy.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging as a rational investment for specific colonoscopies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) was regarded as an adjuvant device to improve procedural efficacy and patients' comfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Several electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. Based on the heterogeneity of included studies, random-effects or fixed-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for meta-analysis, with a total of 7,060 patients. Although there is a slightly lower risk of cecal intubation failure with the adjuvant of MEI (RD 3%; P < 0.00001) compared to the control group, the updated studies show no significant benefits. Similarly, the cecal intubation time, pain scores, and loop formation with the adjuvant of MEI did not show any advantages. However, considerable significant benefits were found in the subgroup of technically difficult colonoscopy and inexperienced colonoscopists. Moreover, MEI was associated with lower loop intubation time, lower abdominal compression times, and better lesion localization.

CONCLUSION

The clinical benefits of MEI could be exaggerated. However, MEI has considerable advantages in technically difficult colonoscopies, the assistance for inexperienced colonoscopists, loop resolving, and lesion localization.

Difference in real-time magnetic image analysis of colonic looping patterns between males and females undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy

Background and study aim Magnetic imaging technology is of proven benefit to trainees in colonoscopy, but few studies have examined its benefits in experienced hands. There is evidence that colonoscopy is more difficult in women. We set out to investigate (i) associations between the looping configurations in the proximal and distal colon and (ii) differences in the looping prevalence between the sexes. We have examined their significance in terms of segmental intubation times and position changes required for the completion of colonoscopy.

Patients and methods We analyzed 103 consecutive synchronized luminal and magnetic image videos of diagnostic colonoscopies with normal anatomy undertaken by a single experienced operator.

Results Deep transverse loops and sigmoid N-loops were more common in females. A deep transverse loop was more likely to be present if a sigmoid alpha-loop or N-loop had formed previously. Patients with sigmoid N-loops were turned more frequently from left lateral to supine before the sigmoid-descending junction was reached, but there was no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern.

Conclusions This study has reexamined the prevalence of the common looping patterns encountered during colonoscopy and has identified differences between the sexes. This finding may offer an explanation as to why colonoscopy has been shown to be more difficult in females. Although a deep transverse loop following a resolved sigmoid alpha-loop was the most commonly encountered pattern, no statistical correlation between completion time and looping pattern could be shown. It is the first study to examine segmental completion times using a magnetic imager in expert hands.

An automatic measure of progression during colonoscopy correlates to patient experienced pain

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance programs depend on patient's tolerable experience, which is associated with competence of the endoscopist. The Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS) is an automated tool based on recording of the Magnetic Scope Imager (MEI) picture in order to track progression. CoPS deliver a numeric score and a graphic map. A high score expresses a rapid and smooth progression. Aims of study were to explore the correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain and to identity locations associated with pain.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients listed for colonoscopy were included and asked to reply to pain by pressing a rubber ball. The signal was recorded simultaneous to CoPS. Patients evaluated the experience on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). CoPS and recorded pain events were used to create a pain sensitive CoPS-map (S-CoPS map).

RESULTS

A total of 58 complete recordings were used for evaluation. We demonstrated a moderate correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain, Pearson's r = -0.47 (p < .001). A low CoPS was associated with a painful colonoscopy and a high CoPS excluded severe pain. Sensitivity and specificity was 0.79 and 0.60 and AUC was 0.61 Passage of the sigmoid colon, right and left flexures were associated with pain for 51%, 33% and 25% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A moderate correlation between CoPS and patient experienced pain suggest that CoPS measure inserting skills but might also be a measure of a gentle performance. The graphic S-CoPS-map can be used to point-out painful passages and aid planning of future colonoscopies.

Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on the learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy competency assessment in trainees traditionally has been informal. Comprehensive metrics such as the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool suggest that competency thresholds are higher than assumed. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) may improve competency, but data regarding novice trainees are lacking. We compared CAC versus standard colonoscopy (SC) performed by novice trainees in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

All colonoscopies performed by 3 gastroenterology fellows without prior experience were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria included patient age <18 or >90 years, pregnancy, prior colon resection, diverticulitis, colon obstruction, severe hematochezia, referral for EMR, or a procedure done without patient sedation. Patients were randomized to either CAC or SC in a 1:1 fashion. The primary outcome was the independent cecal intubation rate (ICIR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, adenoma detection rate, ACE tool scores, and cumulative summation learning curves.

RESULTS

A total of 203 colonoscopies were analyzed, 101 in CAC and 102 in SC. CAC resulted in a significantly higher cecal intubation rate, at 79.2% in CAC compared with 66.7% in SC (P = .04). Overall cecal intubation time was significantly shorter at 13.7 minutes for CAC versus 16.5 minutes for SC (P =.02). Cecal intubation time in the case of successful independent fellow intubation was not significantly different between CAC and SC (11.6 minutes vs 12.7 minutes; P = .29). Overall ACE tool motor and cognitive scores were higher with CAC. Learning curves for ICIR approached the competency threshold earlier with cap use but reached competency for only 1 fellow. The polyp detection rate, polyp miss rate, and adenoma detection rate were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAC resulted in significant improvement in ICIR, overall ACE tool scores, and trend toward competency on learning curves when compared with SC in colonoscopy trainees without prior colonoscopy experience. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02472730.).

Approach to Incomplete Colonoscopy: New Techniques and Technologies

Colonoscopy is the most widely used screening modality for the detection and removal of colon polyps and for the prevention of colorectal cancer. To identify all colon lesions and reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, it is important to perform a complete colonoscopy. The success of screening colonoscopy depends upon several parameters, including bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate. Incomplete colonoscopy rates vary from 4% to 25% and are associated with higher rates of interval proximal colon cancer. This article reviews the potential causes of and preventive measures for incomplete colonoscopy, as well as techniques and technologies that may improve the rate of complete colonoscopy.

Alternatives to Incomplete Colonoscopy

A thorough and complete colonoscopy is critically important in preventing colorectal cancer. Factors associated with difficult and incomplete colonoscopy include a poor bowel preparation, severe diverticulosis, redundant colon, looping, adhesions, young and female patients, patient discomfort, and the expertise of the endoscopist. For difficult colonoscopy, focusing on bowel preparation techniques, appropriate sedation and adjunct techniques such as water immersion, abdominal pressure techniques, and patient positioning can overcome many of these challenges. Occasionally, these fail and other alternatives to incomplete colonoscopy have to be considered. If patients have low risk of polyps, then noninvasive imaging options such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) colonography can be considered. Novel applications such as Colon Capsule™ and Check-Cap are also emerging. In patients in whom a clinically significant lesion is noted on a noninvasive imaging test or if they are at a higher risk of having polyps, balloon-assisted colonoscopy can be performed with either a single- or double-balloon enteroscope or colonoscope. The application of these techniques enables complete colonoscopic examination in the vast majority of patients.

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

BACKGROUND

The verbalisation of quality standards and parameters by medical societies are relevant for qualitative improvement but may also be an instrument to demand more resources for health care or be a unique characteristic. Within the health care system 3 different quality levels can be defined: structure, process and result quality.

METHODS

The current S2k guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology (quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy) AWMF registry no. 021-022 provides recommendations based on the available evidence for the structure quality (requirements for equipment, human resources) as well as for the process quality (patient preparation, conduct, documentation) and result quality (follow-up of specific endoscopic procedures).

RESULTS

Based on these recommendations, measurable quality indicators/parameters for the endoscopy have been selected and formulated. General quality parameters for endoscopic examinations are given as well as quality parameters for specific procedures for the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of specific endoscopic interventions.

CONCLUSION

Only the regular review of processes and courses by means of defined measurement parameters builds up the basis for corrections based on facts. In addition, the implementation of recommended standards may be an instrument in demanding more resources from the health care system and, therefore, should be embedded as routine.

Utilisation of magnets to enhance gastrointestinal endoscopy

Methods to assess, access and treat pathology within the gastrointestinal tract continue to evolve with video endoscopy replacing radiology as the gold standard. Whilst endoscope technology develops further with the advent of newer higher resolution chips, an array of adjuncts has been developed to enhance endoscopy in other ways; most notable is the use of magnets. Magnets are utilised in many areas, ranging from endoscopic training, lesion resection, aiding manoeuvrability of capsule endoscopes, to assisting in easy placement of tubes for nutritional feeding. Some of these are still at an experimental stage, whilst others are being increasingly incorporated in our everyday practice.

Quality of colonoscopy and advances in detection of colorectal lesions: a current overview

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer and its precursors. Nevertheless multiple studies have demonstrated a significant miss-rate for polyps and, more importantly, demonstrated the occurrence of interval cancers in the years after colonoscopy. This imperfect protection against colorectal cancer can be explained by multiple factors related to both the endoscopist and the equipment. To ensure the quality of colonoscopy, several quality indicators have been described. These include bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate and complication rate. Measurement of these quality indicators, followed by awareness, benchmarking and additional training will hopefully optimize daily practice. If these basic quality parameters are well taken care of, advanced colonoscopic techniques will aim at further increasing the detection and differentiation of colonic lesions. In this review, the authors discuss the literature on quality indicators for colonoscopy and give a comprehensive overview of the advanced colonoscopic techniques currently available.

Magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

AIM: To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS: Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as “usual” or “difficult” by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.

RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.

CONCLUSION: 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.