Proof-of-concept study of the Aer-O-Scope™ omnidirectional colonoscopic viewing system in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models

Endoscopy

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 412-417

  Arber, N ^a   Grinshpon, R ^a   Pfeffer, J ^a   Maor, L ^b   Bar Meir, S ^b   Rex, D ^c  

^a TEL AVIV SOURASKY MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^b SHEBA MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; COLON MUCOSA; COLON POLYP; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; EX VIVO STUDY; FEMALE; IN VIVO STUDY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SAFETY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; COLONOSCOPES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; MODELS, ANIMAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWINE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 34249072866     PISSN: 0013726X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966452     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
2. Rex DK, Rahmani EY, Haseman JH et al. Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 17-23
3. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, Garewal HS. Prospective blinded trial of the colonoscopic miss-rate of large colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 125-127
4. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
5. Atkin W, Rogers P, Cardwell C et al. Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 2004; 126: 1247-1256
6. Sanchez W, Harewood GC, Petersen BT. Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 1941-1945
7. Barclay R, Vicari JJ, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RI. Variation in adenoma detection rates and colonoscopic withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: AB107
8. Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 41-48
9. Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Am Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
10. Miller RE, Lehman G. Polypoid colonic lesions undetected by endoscopy. Radiology 1978; 129: 295-297
11. Rex D, Chadalawada V, Helper DJ. Wide angle colonoscopy with a prototype instrument: impact on miss rates and efficiency determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2000-2005
12. Deenadayalu VP, Chadalawada V, Rex DK. 170 degrees wide-angle colonoscope: effect on efficiency and miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 2138-2142
13. Fatima H, Rex DK, Rahmani E et al. Wide angle (WA) (170° angle of view) versus standard (ST) (140° angle of view) colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: AB204
14. 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
15. Pfeffer J, Grinshpon R, Rex D et al. 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: 105-208