Comparison of a novel bedside portable endoscopy device with nasogastric aspiration for identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Compact Smartphone-Based Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging Endoscope Device for Point-of-Care Blood Flow Monitoring

Laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) is a powerful visualization tool for quantifying blood flow in tissues, providing simplicity of configuration, ease of use, and intuitive results. With recent advancements, smartphone and camera technologies are suitable for the development of smartphone-based LSCI applications for point-of-care (POC) diagnosis. A smartphone-based portable LSCI endoscope system was validated for POC diagnosis of vascular disorders. The endoscope consisted of compact LED and laser illumination, imaging optics, and a flexible fiberscope assembled in a 3D-printed hand-held cartridge for access to body cavities and organs. A smartphone’s rear camera was mounted thereto, enabling endoscopy, LSCI image acquisition, and processing. Blood flow imaging was calibrated in a perfused tissue phantom consisting of a microparticle solution pumped at known rates through tissue-mimicking gel and validated in a live rat model of BBN-induced bladder cancer. Raw LSCI images successfully visualized phantom flow: speckle flow index showed linearity with the pump flow rate. In the rat model, healthy and cancerous bladders were distinguishable in structure and vasculature. The smartphone-based low-cost portable mobile endoscope for monitoring blood flow and perfusion shows promise for preclinical applications and may be suitable for primary diagnosis at home or as a cost-effective POC testing assay.

Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND

A portable disposable ultrathin endoscope (DUE) with high visual quality and maneuverability would reduce the need for expensive facilities and emergency endoscopy could be available anywhere. It would increase patient satisfaction, prevent unnecessary sedation, and reduce infection. Our aim was to evaluate the usefulness of portable DUE in performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent PEG under DUE guidance and compared them with historical controls who underwent PEG under conventional ultrathin endoscopy (CUE) guidance. The primary outcomes were successful stomach visualization and PEG tube insertion.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients (19 male) were enrolled and compared with 25 gender and indication-matched controls. The most common indications for PEG were aspiration due to stroke or brain injury, dementia, and head and neck cancer. Entrance into the stomach was achieved in 92.0% (23/25) and 96% (24/25) in the DUE and CUE groups, and PEG was performed in 91.3% (21/23) and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. The mean insertion time for the DUE and CUE groups were 22.7 ± 9.3 minutes and 17.1 ± 5.7 minutes (P = 0.044). The 3 cases of failure to reach the stomach in both groups were caused by esophageal blockage. The 3 cases of failed PEG tube insertion were caused by poor visualization of the insertion site. Bleeding and pneumoperitoneum occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the DUE group. One case of fever was noted in the CUE group. All adverse events were conservatively managed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that portable DUE in facilities without endoscopy equipment may be clinically feasible.