In vitro evaluation of forces exerted by a new computer-assisted colonoscope (the NeoGuide Endoscopy System)

Background: The NeoGuide Endoscopy System (NES) utilizes a fully articulated, computer-controlled insertion tube that allows proximal segments of the colonoscope to follow the path taken by the tip as it is manually advanced through the colon. The system was designed to eliminate looping and scope displacement during colonoscopy.
Material and methods: Using in vitro testing, an inanimate flexible model of the colon incorporating four force transducers located at the key flexure points was employed to measure the axial forces on the colon wall during colonoscopy. In the second part of the study, 10 gastroenterologists performed colonoscopies, using a training latex-based simulator, with the NES and with a standard colonoscope. Colonic displacement was independently assessed by six gastroenterologists, with each evaluating endoscopist assigning a score between 0 and 5 corresponding to the maximum colonic displacement observed at any location.
Results: The average measured forces (in lbs) at three of the four flexure points were significantly lower (P < 0.05) when the NES was used. The mean colonic displacement was significantly lower for procedures performed with the NES compared with the standard colonoscope (2.36 vs. 4.26, P < 0.001). Interobserver agreement regarding the degree of colonic displacement due to looping was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.45, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: Colonoscopy with the NES was associated with significantly less looping and lateral force required for advancement than procedures with a standard colonoscope. The reduced amount of looping suggests that use of the NES in patients might be associated with less discomfort and thus require less sedation.

References

• 1 Cotton P B, Connor P, McGee D. et al . Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 352-357
• 2 Appleyard M N, Mosse C A, Mills T N. et al . The measurement of forces exerted during colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 237-240
• 3 Shah S G, Brooker J C, Thapar C. et al . Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on patient tolerance and sedation requirements during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 832-837
• 4 Shah S G, Brooker J C, Thapar C. et al . Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 435-440
• 5 Shah S G, Saunders B P, Brooker J C, Williams C B. Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 1-8
• 6 Ginsberg G G. Colonoscopy with the variable stiffness colonoscope.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 579-584
• 7 Shah S G, Brooker J C, Williams C B. et al . The variable stiffness colonoscope: assessment of efficacy by magnetic endoscope imaging.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 195-201
• 8 Ball J E, Osbourne J, Jowett S. et al . Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study.  BMJ. 2004;  329 665-667
• 9 Rex D K, Khalfan H K. Sedation and the technical performance of colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;  15 661-672
• 10 Eickhoff A, van Dam J, Jakobs R. et al . Computer-assisted colonoscopy (The NeoGuide Endoscopy System): results of the first human clinical trial (”PACE-Study”).  Am J Gastroenterol;. in press 2006;  101 1-6
• 11 Van Dam J, Jakobs R. Evaluation of a new partially-automated, potentially sedationless colonoscope.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 AB102
• 12 Raju G S, Rex D K, Kozarek R A. et al . A novel shape-locking guide for prevention of sigmoid looping during colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 416-419
• 13 Davies M, Fleiss J L. Measuring agreement for multinomial data.  Biometrics. 1982;  38 1047-1051
• 14 Wolff W I, Shinya H. Colonofiberoscopy.  JAMA. 1971;  217 1509-1512
• 15 Waye J D, Kahn O, Auerbach M E. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1996;  6 343-377
• 16 Hull T, Church J M. Colonoscopy - how difficult, how painful?.  Surg Endosc. 1994;  8 784-787
• 17 Shah S G, Saunders B P. Aids to insertion: magnetic imaging, variable stiffness, and overtubes.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;  15 673-686
• 18 Rex D K. Effect of variable stiffness colonoscopes on cecal intubation times for routine colonoscopy by an experienced examiner in sedated patients.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 60-64
• 19 Swain P. Colonoscopy: new designs for the future.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2005;  15 839-863
• 20 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al . Evaluation of a novel colonoscope designed for easier passage through flexures: a randomized study.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 1123-1126
• 21 Rex D K, Khashab M, Raju G S. et al . Insertability and safety of a shape-locking device for colonoscopy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 817-820
• 22 Vucelic B, Rex D, Pulanic R. et al . The Aer-O-Scope: proof of concept of a pneumatic, skill independent, self propelling, self navigating colonoscope.  Gastroenterology. 2006;  130 672-677
• 23 Wu T K. Occult injuries during colonoscopy. Measurement of forces required to injure the colon and report of cases.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1978;  24 236-238
• 24 Eickhoff A, van Dam J, Riemann J F. Determining scope position during colonoscopy without the use of ionizing radiation or magnetic field: the enhanced mapping ability of the NeoGuide Endoscopy System.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 AB1501