본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Comfort of a Single-Use Electronic Colonoscope.

Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 2026

Tian Y, Rao X, Yu H, Zheng L, Wang A, Liu S, He Y, Rong L

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[BACKGROUND AND AIM] Although reusable colonoscopes remain the clinical gold standard, persistent microbial biofilms compromise reprocessing efficacy and increase cross-contamination risk.

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value p < 0.001

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Tian Y, Rao X, et al. (2026). Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Comfort of a Single-Use Electronic Colonoscope.. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.70387
MLA Tian Y, et al.. "Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Comfort of a Single-Use Electronic Colonoscope.." Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2026.
PMID 42009567
DOI 10.1111/jgh.70387

Abstract

[BACKGROUND AND AIM] Although reusable colonoscopes remain the clinical gold standard, persistent microbial biofilms compromise reprocessing efficacy and increase cross-contamination risk. This study evaluated a novel single-use colonoscope compared to a conventional device across key clinical and patient-centered outcomes.

[METHODS] In a single-blind randomized trial, 100 patients (aged 18-80 years) undergoing conscious sedation colonoscopy were assigned (1:1) to a single-use colonoscope (Endofresh XZING-C200B) or a conventional colonoscope (Olympus CF-H260). Primary endpoints included patient comfort (assessed via real-time grip strength dynamometry), therapeutic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy, adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and cecal intubation time.

[RESULTS] Groups were demographically balanced. No significant differences were observed in patient comfort (p > 0.05), EMR outcomes (100% en bloc resection; median procedure times: 11.32 ± 4.55 vs. 11.57 ± 7.95 min, p = 0.899), diagnostic performance (ADRs: 56% vs. 60%, p = 0.685; APCs median: 1.0 vs. 1.0, p = 0.349), or cecal intubation time (7.47 ± 5.81 vs. 6.13 ± 4.06 min, p = 0.185). One sigmoid colon cancer was detected per group. The single-use device showed inferior image quality and far-field brightness (both p < 0.001).

[CONCLUSIONS] In this exploratory randomized trial, the novel single-use colonoscope demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety profiles comparable to the conventional system. These preliminary findings support its potential for integration into routine screening, pending confirmation in larger noninferiority studies. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2400082142.

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)