Functional Evaluation of the Endotics System,a New Disposable Self-Propelled Robotic Colonoscope: in vitro tests and clinical trial

Abstract

Objective

Currently, the best method for CRC screening is colonoscopy, which ideally (where possible) is performed under partial or deep sedation. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Endotics System, a new robotic device composed of a workstation and a disposable probe, in performing accurate and well-tolerated colonoscopies. This new system could also be considered a precursor of other innovating vectors for atraumatic locomotion through natural orifices such as the bowel. The flexible probe adapts its shape to the complex contours of the colon, thereby exerting low strenuous forces during its movement. These novel characteristics allow for a painless and safe colonoscopy, thus eliminating all major associated risks such as infection, cardiopulmonary complications and colon perforation.

Methods

An experimental study was devised to investigate stress pattern differences between traditional and robotic colonoscopy, in which 40 enrolled patients underwent both robotic and standard colonoscopy within the same day.

Results

The stress pattern related to robotic colonoscopy was 90% lower than that of standard colonoscopy. Additionally, the robotic colonoscopy demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy, since, due to the lower insufflation rate, it was able to visualize small polyps and angiodysplasias not seen during the standard colonoscopy. All patients rated the robotic colonoscopy as virtually painless com-pared to the standard colonoscopy, ranking pain and discomfort as 0.9 and 1.1 respectively, on a scale of 0 to 10, versus 6.9 and 6.8 respectively for the standard device.

Conclusions

The new Endotics System demonstrates efficacy in the diagnosis of colonic pathologies using a procedure nearly completely devoid of pain. Therefore, this system can also be looked upon as the first step toward developing and implementing colonoscopy with atraumatic locomotion through the bowel while maintaining a high level of diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords

Painless colonoscopy CRC screening Robotic colonoscope Disposable colonoscope

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burnand

, Harris

J.K.

, Wietlisbach

. Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 1018–26.

Pignone

, Rich

, Teutsch

S.M.

. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 132–41.

Seeff

L.C.

, Richards

T.B.

, Shapiro

J.A.

. Howmany endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 1670–7.

Radelli

, Meucci

, Minoli

and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologist (AIGO) Colonoscopy practice: A prospective survey on behalf of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologist. Dig Liver Dis 2008; 40: 897–904.

Takahashi

, Tanaka

, Kinjo

, Sakumoto

. Sedation-free colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 855–9.

Sharma

V.K.

, Nguyen

C.C.

, Crowell

M.D.

, Lieberman

D.A.

, de Garmo

, Fleischer

D.E.

. Fleischer national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after Gl endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 27–34.

Cappell

M.S.

, Friedel

. The role of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal disorders: technique, indications, and contraindications. Med Clin N Am 86; 2002; 1217–52.

Nelson

D.B.

. Infectious disease complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Part I: endogenous infections. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 546–56.

Members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy - Ad Hoc Committee on Disinfection.

Reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.

Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 540–6.

10.

Kimmey

M.B.

, Burnett

D.A.

, Carr-Locke

D.L.

. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 36: 885–8.

11.

Spach

D.H.

, Silverstein

F.E.

, Stamm

W.E.

. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 117–28.

12.

Muscarella

. Automatic Flexible Endoscope Reprocessors. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2000; 10: 245–57.

13.

Lewis

. A Sterilisation Standard for Endoscopes and Other Difficulties to Clean Medical Devices. Pract Gastroenterol 1999; 23: 28–56.

14.

Rutala

W.A.

, Weber

D.J.

. Reprocessing endoscopes: United States perspective. J Hosp Infect 2004; 56(Suppl 2): S27–39.

15.

Woltjen

J.A.

. A retrospective analysis of cecal barotraumas caused by colonoscope air flow and pressure. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 37–45.

16.

Shiels

W.E.

, Kirks

, Keller

. Colonic perforation by Air and Liquid Enemas: Comparison study in Young Pigs. AJR Am Roentgen 1993; 160: 931–5.

17.

Anderson

M.L.

, Pasha

T.M.

, Leighton

J.A.

. Endoscopic Perforation of the Colon: Lessons From a 10-Year study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3418–22.

18.

Hart

, Classen

. Complications of diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 1990; 22: 229–33.

19.

Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 791–8.

20.

Winawer

S.J.

, Zauber

A.G.

, Ho

M.N.

. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993: 1997–81.

21.

Winawer

S.J.

, Zauber

A.G.

, Gerdes

. Risk of colorectal cancer in the families of patients with adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 82–7.

22.

Rex

D.K.

, Bond

J.H.

, Winawer

. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296–1308.

23.

Levin

, Lieberman

D.A.

, McFarland

. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570–95.

24.

Church

, Oakley

, Milsom

. Colonoscopy training: the need for patience (patients). ANZ J Surg 2002; 72: 89–91.

25.

Felix

. Leung Unsedated Colonoscopy Introduced to Ensure Access is Acceptable to a Subgroup of Veterans. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53: 2719–22.

26.

Harris

J.K.

, Vader

J.P.

, Wietlisbach

, Burnand

, Gonvers

J.J.

, Froehlich

; Epage Study Group. Variations in colonoscopy practice in Europe: a multicentre descriptive study (EPAGE). Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 126–34.

27.

Han

, Uno

, Munakata

. Does flexible small-diameter colonoscope reduce insertion pain during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2000; 6: 659–63.

28.

Cotton

P.B.

, Connor

, McGee

. Colonoscopy: practice, variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 352–7.

29.

Harewood

G.C.

. Relationship of colonoscopy completion rates and endoscopist features. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 47–51.

30.

Bowles

C.J.A.

, Leicester

, Romaya

. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53: 277–83.

31.

Eliakim

, Fireman

, Gralnek

I.M.

. Evaluation of the Pill Cam Colon capsule in the detection of colonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 963–70.

32.

Schoofs

, Deviere

, Van Gossum

. PillCam colon capsule for colorectal tumor diagnosis: a prospective pilot study. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 971–7.

33.

Eickhoff

, Van Dam

, Jakobs

. Computer-assisted colonoscopy the NeoGuide endoscopy system: results of the first human clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 261–6.

34.

Rosch

, Adler

, Pohl

. A motor-driven single-use colonoscope controlled with a hand-held device: a feasibility study in volunteers. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 1139–46.

35.

Pfeffer

, Grinshpon

, Rex

. The Aer-O-Scope: proof of the concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope in a pig model. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 144–8.

36.

Vucelic

, Rex

, Pulanic

. The Aer-O-Scope: proof of the concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 672–7.

37.

Rex

. A Self-Propelled Colonoscope: Aer-O-Scope. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 2008; 4: 10–3.

38.

Arber

, Grinshpon

, Maor

. Proof of concept study of the Aer-O-scope omni-directional colonoscopic viewing system in ex-vivo and in-vivo porcine models. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 412–7.

39.

Faivre

, Dancourt

, Lejeune

. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1674–80.

40.

Hahn

. Feasibility of sigmoidoscopic screening for bowel cancer in a primary care setting. J Am Board Fam Pract 1989; 2: 25–9.

41.

Lieberman

D.A.

, Weiss

D.G.

, Bond

J.H.

. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162–8.