The Aer-O-Scope: Proof of the concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope in a pig model

Endoscopy

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 144-148

  Pfeffer, J ^a   Grinshpon, R ^a   Rex, D ^b   Levin, B ^c   Rosch T ^d   Arber, N ^a,e   Halpern, Z ^a,e  

^a TEL AVIV SOURASKY MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^d CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^e TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COLON MUCOSA; COLONOSCOPE; COLONOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; FOLLOW UP; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MUCOSA INFLAMMATION; NONHUMAN; PNEUMATIC TOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; SKILL; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SWINE;

ANIMALS; COLONIC DISEASES; COLONOSCOPES; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; FEMALE; PILOT PROJECTS; SWINE;

EID: 33344461124     PISSN: 0013726X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-925089     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Lieberman DA et al. Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 868-877
2. Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V et al. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 230-236
3. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C et al. Complications of colonoscopy in a community practice setting. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: A25
4. U.S. Patent 6,162,171. Robotic endoscope and an autonomous pipe robot for performing endoscopic procedures. December 2000
5. Manciassi A, Park HJong, Lee S et al. Robotic solutions and mechanisms for a semi-autonomous endoscope. Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Lausanne, Switzerland: EPFL, 2002
6. Shike M, Repici A, Cohen LB et al. Major advances in colonoscopic technology: the ColonoSigh®, a pull-power assisted disposable, non fiber-optic colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: AB113
7. Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D, Jowell P, Nickl N, Schutz S, Leung J, Lee J, Libby E. Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003; 57: 198-202
8. Wexner SD, Garbus JE, Singh JJ. SAGES Colonoscopy Study Outcomes Group. A prospective analysis of 13580 colonoscopies. Reevaluation of credentialing guidelines. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 251-261
9. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein OA. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53: 277-283
10. Ball EJ, Osbourne J, Jowett S, Pellen M , Welfare MR. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665-667
11. 2 delivery system. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 190-194
12. Church J, Delaney C. Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflations during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 322-326
13. Woltjen JA. A retrospective analysis of cecal barotrauma caused by colonoscope air flow and pressure. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 37-45
14. Rogalla P, Meiri N, Ruckert JC et al. Colonoscopy using multislice CT. Eur J Radiol 2000; 36: 81-85
15. 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; [in press]: