This article is a Preprint
Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Preprints posted online allow authors to receive rapid feedback and the entire scientific community can appraise the work for themselves and respond appropriately. Those comments are posted alongside the preprints for anyone to read them and serve as a post publication assessment.
Performance comparison of reusable versus disposable colonoscopes:a non-inferiority Trial (preprint)
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint
in English
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.11.20.22282561
ABSTRACT
Objective We herein compared the performance of reusable and disposable colonoscopes in patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with a view of preventing patient cross-infection, protecting the safety of clinical medical staff, reducing the risk of infection, and minimizing the decontamination process, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods We randomly divided patients meeting the enrollment criteria into reusable and disposable colonoscopy groups; the success rate of photographing customary anatomical sites with a non-inferiority margin of -8% was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the adenoma detection rate, operation time, endoscopic image quality score, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) success rate, and adverse events. Results We recruited patients who were treated using reusable or disposable (n = 45, each) colonoscopes. Both groups had 100% success rate for capturing images of customary anatomical sites, with no between-group differences. The lower limit of 95% CI was - 7.8654%, which was greater than the non-inferiority threshold of -8%. The disposable group had a significantly lower average image quality score (26.09 ±1.33 vs. 27.44±0.59, P < 0.001) than the reusable group. The groups did not significantly differ in maneuverability, safety, or device failure/defect rate. The en-bloc EMR success rate was 100% in both groups. EMR took significantly longer in the disposable group (466.18 s±180.56 s vs . 206.32 s±109.54 s, P < 0.001). The incidence of EMR-related bleeding and perforation did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusions Disposable colonoscope endoscopy is safe and feasible for endoscopy examinations and EMR.
Full text:
Available
Collection:
Preprints
Database:
medRxiv
Main subject:
Adenoma
/
Cross Infection
/
COVID-19
/
Hemorrhage
Language:
English
Year:
2022
Document Type:
Preprint
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS