Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar 18;12(3):E428-E434.
doi: 10.1055/a-2271-2303. eCollection 2024 Mar.

Performance of a single-use gastroscope for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Prospective evaluation

Affiliations

Performance of a single-use gastroscope for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Prospective evaluation

Koen van der Ploeg et al. Endosc Int Open. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background and study aims Reprocessing reusable endoscopes is challenging due to their non-sterilizable nature. Disinfection has been shown to have a significant risk of failure with serious consequences. Single-use endoscopes can eliminate contamination risk and reduce workflow delays caused by reprocessing. This study evaluated the clinical performance of single-use gastroscopes in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients and methods In this case series, 60 patients underwent EGD using single-use gastroscopes, with 34 procedures in the endoscopy department and 26 in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome was successful completion of the intended EGD objective. Furthermore, certified endoscopists assessed device performance on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1-"much worse" to 5-"much better"), considering their experience with a reusable gastroscope. Results Successful completion of EGDs using only the single-use gastroscope was achieved in 58 of 60 cases (96.7%). In two cases, crossover to an ultra-slim endoscope was necessary to either reach the esophageal stenosis or to transverse the stenosis. Overall satisfaction was rated as comparable to reusable scopes in 51 of 56 cases (91.1%) and inferior in five cases (8.9%). The lower weight of the single-use gastroscope was rated as superior in 42 of 60 cases (70.0%). Drawbacks included reduced image quality (23 of 45 cases; 51.1%). Feedback included the absence of a freeze button, lens cleaning issues, and small image size. Conclusions Single-use gastroscopes exhibited a high EGD completion rate and effectiveness for various indications. Further research should focus on evaluating the implementation of single-use gastroscopes in a comprehensive context, considering clinical effectiveness, costs, and environmental impact.

Keywords: Endoscopy Upper GI Tract; Hygiene; Performance and complications; Quality and logistical aspects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest KvdP, ADK, WJL and VP declare no conflict of interests for this article. PJFJ acted as consultant/lecturer for Boston Scientific. MCV has received research support from Boston Scientific, 3M and Pentax Medical. LA is a member of the advisory board of AMBU. MJB has received research support from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pentax Medical, Mylan, ChiRoStim and acted as a consultant/lecturer for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pentax Medical and AMBU.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Performance rating of single-use gastroscope according to a five-point Likert scale. WC, working channel endoscope
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparative images from a single patient, taken during two consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for the same indication: analysis of lymphadenopathies with progressive clinical deterioration. The images on the left ( a , c , e ) were obtained with an Ambu aScope Gastro single-use gastroscope, whereas the images on the right ( b , d , f ) were acquired using an Olympus 180 series gastroscope.

References

    1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee . Early DS, Ben-Menachem T et al. Appropriate use of GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1127–1131. - PubMed
    1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:254–272 e211. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee . Ben-Menachem T, Decker GA et al. Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:707–718. - PubMed
    1. Ofstead CL, Buro BL, Hopkins KM et al. Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8:E1769–E1781. doi: 10.1055/a-1264-7173. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCafferty CE, Aghajani MJ, Abi-Hanna D et al. An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1108 Medical Microbiology. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2018;17 doi: 10.1186/s12941-018-0289-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed