Abstract
Objective We herein compared the performance of reusable and disposable colonoscopes in patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with a view of preventing patient cross-infection, protecting the safety of clinical medical staff, reducing the risk of infection, and minimizing the decontamination process, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Methods We randomly divided patients meeting the enrollment criteria into reusable and disposable colonoscopy groups; the success rate of photographing customary anatomical sites with a non-inferiority margin of -8% was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the adenoma detection rate, operation time, endoscopic image quality score, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) success rate, and adverse events.
Results We recruited patients who were treated using reusable or disposable (n = 45, each) colonoscopes. Both groups had 100% success rate for capturing images of customary anatomical sites, with no between-group differences. The lower limit of 95% CI was - 7.8654%, which was greater than the non-inferiority threshold of -8%. The disposable group had a significantly lower average image quality score (26.09 ±1.33 vs. 27.44±0.59, P < 0.001) than the reusable group. The groups did not significantly differ in maneuverability, safety, or device failure/defect rate. The en-bloc EMR success rate was 100% in both groups. EMR took significantly longer in the disposable group (466.18 s±180.56 s vs. 206.32 s±109.54 s, P < 0.001). The incidence of EMR-related bleeding and perforation did not significantly differ between the groups.
Conclusions Disposable colonoscope endoscopy is safe and feasible for endoscopy examinations and EMR.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ChiCTR2100045084
Clinical Protocols
http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=124504
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵# Mingtong Wei and Chenghai Liang are co-first authors.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
