Robotic colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability and safety. Preliminary clinical results from a pilot study
- 16 Downloads
Robotic colonoscopy (RC) is a pneumatically-driven self-propelling platform (Endotics System®) able to investigate the colon, in order to reduce pain and discomfort. Aims: (1) to describe the progress in gaining experience and skills of a trainee in RC; (2) to show the clinical outcomes of RC.
Pilot study. An experienced endoscopist started a training on RC whose progress was assessed comparing the results of 2 consecutive blocks of 27 (Group A) and 28 (Group B) procedures. CIR (Cecal Intubation Rate), CIT (Cecal Intubation Time) and Withdrawal Time (WT) were measured. Polyp Detection Rate (PDR), Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Neoplasia Detection Rate (ANDR) were calculated. Possible adverse events were recorded. At the end of the procedure all patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) to measure their perceived pain during RC and reported their willingness to repeat RC.
General CIR was 92.7%, reaching 100% in Group B. Comparing the two groups, CIT significantly decreased from 55 to 22 min (p value 0.0007), whereas procedures with CIT ≤ 20 min increased (p value 0.037). WT significatively reduced from 21 to 16 min (p value 0.0186). PDR was 40% (males 62.5%, females 14.3%). ADR was 26.7% (males 27.5%, females 14.3%). Most of patients judged the procedure as mild or no distress, with high willingness-to-repeat the RC (92.7%).
Our results about RC are encouraging as preliminary experience, with clear individual learning progress, accurate diagnosis in a painless or comfortable procedure and with possibility to remove polypoid lesions. Studies with larger populations are needed to confirm obtained results.
KeywordsRobotic colonoscopy Adenoma detection rate Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer Screening Painless colonoscopy
Advanced neoplasia detection rate
Adenoma detection rate
Boston bowel preparation scale
Cecal intubation rate
Cecal intubation time
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Polyp detection rate
Serious adverse events
AT conceived and designed the study. AT and RB drafted the manuscript with critical revisions and contributed to the acquisition of the data. FC contributed to the acquisition of data. AB contributed to statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. AT is the author who is acting as the submission's guarantor.
No institutional, private or corporate financial support for the work was received.
Compliance with ethical standards
Antonello Trecca, Filippo Catalano, Antonino Bella and Raffaele Borghini have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 192114 kb)
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use–United States, 2012 MMWR. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62:881–888Google Scholar
- 14.ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Early DS, Lightdale JR, Vargo JJ 2nd, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Evans JA, Fisher DA, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR, Pasha SF, Saltzman JR, Shergill AK, Cash BD, DeWitt JM (2018) Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 87:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Cash BD, Decker GA, Early DS, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fukami N, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue TL, Khan KM, Malpas PM, Sharaf RN, Shergill AK, Dominitz JA (2011) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 74:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.ASGE Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee, Calderwood AH, Day LW, Muthusamy VR, Collins J, Hambrick RD III, Brock AS, Guda NM, Buscaglia JM, Petersen BT, Buttar NS, Khanna LG, Kushnir VM, Repaka A, Villa NA, Eisen GM (2018) ASGE guideline for infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 87:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar