Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(02): E171-E180
DOI: 10.1055/a-1314-9860
Original article

Magnetic flexible endoscope for colonoscopy: an initial learning curve analysis

Alexander P. Mamunes
1   Division of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
Federico Campisano
2   Mechanical Engineering Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
James Martin
3   STORM Lab UK, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
,
Bruno Scaglioni
3   STORM Lab UK, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
,
Evangelos Mazomenos
3   STORM Lab UK, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
,
Pietro Valdastri
3   STORM Lab UK, School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
,
Keith L. Obstein
4   Division of Gastroenterology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
2   Mechanical Engineering Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Colonoscopy is a technically challenging procedure that requires extensive training to minimize discomfort and avoid trauma due to its drive mechanism. Our academic team developed a magnetic flexible endoscope (MFE) actuated by magnetic coupling under supervisory robotic control to enable a front-pull maneuvering mechanism, with a motion controller user interface, to minimize colon wall stress and potentially reduce the learning curve. We aimed to evaluate this learning curve and understand the user experience.

Methods Five novices (no endoscopy experience), five experienced endoscopists, and five experienced MFE users each performed 40 trials on a model colon using 1:1 block randomization between a pediatric colonoscope (PCF) and the MFE. Cecal intubation (CI) success, time to cecum, and user experience (NASA task load index) were measured. Learning curves were determined by the number of trials needed to reach minimum and average proficiency—defined as the slowest average CI time by an experienced user and the average CI time by all experienced users, respectively.

Results MFE minimum proficiency was achieved by all five novices (median 3.92 trials) and five experienced endoscopists (median 2.65 trials). MFE average proficiency was achieved by four novices (median 14.21 trials) and four experienced endoscopists (median 7.00 trials). PCF minimum and average proficiency levels were achieved by only one novice. Novices’ perceived workload with the MFE significantly improved after obtaining minimum proficiency.

Conclusions The MFE has a short learning curve for users with no prior experience—requiring relatively few attempts to reach proficiency and at a reduced perceived workload.



Publication History

Received: 06 June 2020

Accepted: 13 October 2020

Article published online:
25 January 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. . Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 74: 656-665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal cancer deaths. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2012; 67: 355-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Faulx AL, Lightdale JR, Acosta RD. et al. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 273-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Spier BJ, Benson M, Pfau PR. et al. Colonoscopy training in gastroenterology fellowships: determining competence. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 319-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hawkins AT, Sharp KW, Ford MM. et al. Management of colonoscopic perforations: a systemic review. Am J Surgery 2018; 215: 712-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lohsiriwat V. Colonoscopic perforation: incidence, risk factors, management and outcome. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 425-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Day LW, Kwon A, Inadomi JM. et al. Adverse events in older patients undergoing colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 885-896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zhang K, Yuan Q, Zhu S. et al. Is unsedated colonoscopy gaining ground over sedated colonoscopy?. J Natl Med Assoc 2018; 110: 143-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shah SG, Brooker JC, Thapar C. et al. Patient pain during colonoscopy: an analysis using real-time magnetic endoscope imaging. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 435-440
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Slawinski PR, Taddese AZ, Musto KB. et al. Autonomously controlled magnetic flexible endoscope for colon exploration. Gastroenterology 2018; 154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Taddese AZ, Slawinski PR, Pirotta M. et al. Enhanced real-time pose estimation for closed-loop robotic manipulation of magnetically actuated capsule endoscopes. The Int J Robotics Res 2018; 37: 890-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psych Hum Mental Workload 1988; 139-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Obstein K, Estépar R, Jayender J. et al. Image Registered Gastroscopic Ultrasound (IRGUS) in human subjects: a pilot study to assess feasibility. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 394-399
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar