A novel colonoscope with panoramic visualization detected more simulated polyps than conventional colonoscopy in a live swine model

Background and study aims: The Aer-O-Scope™ Colonoscope System (AOS) combines panoramic 360° view with standard forward view. We assessed the AOS’s ability to identify lesions implanted in live swine, compared to conventional colonoscopy (CC).

Patients and methods: Twelve swine colons were surgically ligated and beads sewn within. Five procedures (3 AOS and 2 CC) were performed on each swine and findings reported. Physicians were blinded to number, size, and color of beads. The sequence of procedures and physicians was randomized. Pigs, physicians, and colonoscopes were randomly alternated between examination rooms, maintaining physician blindness. Two independent blinded physicians interpreted procedure videos offline.

Results: A total of 259 /273 (94.9 %) of lesions were visualized by AOS compared to 158 /182 with CC (86.8 %) (P = 0.002). Miss rates of lesions ≥ 6 mm were 2.6 % and 10.5 %, respectively (P = 0.022), and 6.9 % and 15.1 %, respectively, for lesions < 6 mm (P = 0.031). Mean agreement between AOS and CC for lesion detection was 88.3 %. The benefit of AOS was maintained in offline video review.

Conclusions: AOS, featuring panoramic 360° view, demonstrated high detection rates for simulated colonic lesions in a live swine model.

• References:

• 1 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MG, Vleggaar FP et al. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
• 2 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 3 Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-389 e1
• 4 Gralnek IM, Segol O, Suissa A et al. A prospective cohort study evaluating a novel colonoscopy platform featuring full-spectrum endoscopy. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 697-702
• 5 Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 480-489
• 6 Arber N, Grinshpon R, Pfeffer J et al. Proof-of-concept study of the Aer-O-Scope omnidirectional colonoscopic viewing system in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 412-417
• 7 Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
• 8 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: 144-148
• 9 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
• 10 Rex DK. Looking over your shoulder during colonoscopy: potential roles for videorecording colonoscopy withdrawals. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 134-137