An endoscopic training model to improve accuracy of colonic polyp size measurement

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi-Yang Chang ◽  
Han-Mo Chiu ◽  
Hsiu-Po Wang ◽  
Ching-Tai Lee ◽  
John Jen Tai ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Luis Silva ◽  
Lucas Aurich ◽  
Felipe Monteiro ◽  
Lucas Zambon ◽  
Gustavo Nogueira ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (05) ◽  
pp. E602-E609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Visentini-Scarzanella ◽  
Hiroshi Kawasaki ◽  
Ryo Furukawa ◽  
Marco Bonino ◽  
Simone Arolfo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Polyp size measurement is an important diagnostic step during gastrointestinal endoscopy, and is mainly performed by visual inspection. However, lack of depth perception and objective reference points are acknowledged factors contributing to measurement errors in polyp size. In this paper, we describe the proof-of-concept of a polyp measurement device based on structured light technology for future endoscopes. Patients and methods Measurement accuracy, time, user confidence, and satisfaction were evaluated for polyp size assessment by (a) visual inspection, (b) open biopsy forceps of known size, (c) ruled snare, and (d) structured light probe, for a total of 392 independent polyp measurements in ex vivo porcine stomachs. Results Visual assessment resulted in a median estimation error of 2.2 mm, IQR = 2.6 mm. The proposed probe can reduce the error to 1.5 mm, IQR = 1.67 mm (P = 0.002, 95 %CI) and its performance was found to be statistically similar to using forceps for reference (P = 0.81, 95 %CI) or ruled snare (P = 0.99, 95 %CI), while not occluding the tool channel. Timing performance with the probe was measured to be on average 54.75 seconds per polyp. This was significantly slower than visual assessment (20.7 seconds per polyp, P = 0.005, 95 %CI) but not significantly different from using a snare (68.5 seconds per polyp, P = 0.73, 95 %CI). However, the probe’s timing performance was partly due to lens cleaning problems in our preliminary design. Reported average satisfaction on a 0 – 10 range was highest for the proposed probe (7.92), visual assessment (7.01), and reference forceps (7.82), while significantly lower for snare users with a score of 4.42 (P = 0.035, 95 %CI). Conclusions The common practice of visual assessment of polyp size was found to be significantly less accurate than tool-based assessment, but easy to carry out. The proposed technology offers an accuracy on par with using a reference tool or ruled snare with the same satisfaction levels of visual assessment and without occluding the tool channel. Further study will improve the design to reduce the operating time by integrating the probe within the scope tip.


Endoscopy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 881-883
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Allesandro Repici ◽  
Douglas Rex
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 2566-2572
Author(s):  
V. Becker ◽  
D. Ostler ◽  
H. Feussner ◽  
S. Nennstiel ◽  
B. Haller ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. AB267
Author(s):  
Helmut Neumann ◽  
Thomas Buder ◽  
Silke Löffler ◽  
Timo Rath ◽  
Andreas Nägel ◽  
...  

Gut ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A217.2-A218
Author(s):  
J Schembri ◽  
K Caruana ◽  
J Delicata ◽  
P Ellul

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2365
Author(s):  
Seul-Ki Han ◽  
Hyunil Kim ◽  
Jin-woo Kim ◽  
Hyun-Soo Kim ◽  
Su-Yong Kim ◽  
...  

Accurate measurement of polyp size during colonoscopy is crucial. The usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy and external grid application on monitor (gCAP) was evaluated for polyp size measurement in this 3-year, single-center, single-blind, randomized trial. Using the endoscopic forceps width as reference, the discrepancy percent (DP), error rate (ER), and measurement time were compared between gCAP and visual estimation (VE) after randomization. ER was calculated within a 20% and 33% limit. From the 111 patients, 280 polyps were measured. The mean polyp sizes were 4.0 ± 1.7 mm and 4.2 ± 1.8 mm with gCAP and VE, respectively (p = 0.368). Compared with that by the forceps method, DP was significantly lower in the gCAP group than in the VE group. Moreover, ER was significantly lower in the gCAP group within its preset limit. The measurement time was 4 s longer in the gCAP group than in the VE group (8.2 ± 4.8 s vs. 4.2 ± 1.5 s; p < 0.001). However, the forceps method lasted 28 s longer than the others. On subgroup analysis by size, gCAP was more accurate for polyp size ≥5 mm. The gCAP method was more accurate for polyp size measurement than VE, especially for polyps ≥5 mm, and was more convenient than the forceps method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document