TY - JOUR
T1 - Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP
T2 - a randomized bench-model comparison
AU - Ross, Andrew S.
AU - Bruno, Marco J.
AU - Kozarek, Richard A.
AU - Petersen, Bret T.
AU - Pleskow, Douglas K.
AU - Sejpal, Divyesh V.
AU - Slivka, Adam
AU - Moore, Dale
AU - Panduro, Karina
AU - Peetermans, Joyce A.
AU - Insull, Jeffrey
AU - Rousseau, Matthew J.
AU - Tirrell, Gregory P.
AU - Muthusamy, V. Raman
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2020/2
Y1 - 2020/2
N2 - Background and Aims: Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscope reuse have been documented internationally. A single-use endoscope could eliminate exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP. Methods: We conducted a comparative bench simulation study of a new single-use and 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes on a synthetic anatomic bench model. Four ERCP tasks were performed: guidewire locking (single-use and 1 reusable duodenoscope only), plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. The study schedule included block randomization by 4 duodenoscopes, 4 tasks, and 2 anatomic model ERCP stations. Ability to complete tasks, task completion times, and subjective ratings of overall performance, navigation/pushability, tip control, and image quality on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) were compared among duodenoscopes. Results: All 4 ERCP tasks (total 14 subtasks) were completed by 6 expert endoscopists using all 4 duodenoscopes, with similar task completion times (median, 1.5-8.0 minutes per task) and overall performance ratings by task (median, 8.0-10.0). Navigation/pushability ratings were lower for the single-use duodenoscope than for the 3 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 10.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P <.01). Tip control ratings were similar among all the duodenoscopes (median, 9.0-10.0; P =.77). Image quality ratings were lower for 1 reusable duodenoscope compared with the single-use and other 2 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P <.01). Conclusions: A new single-use duodenoscope was used to simulate 4 ERCP tasks in an anatomic model, with performance ratings and completion times comparable with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes.
AB - Background and Aims: Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscope reuse have been documented internationally. A single-use endoscope could eliminate exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP. Methods: We conducted a comparative bench simulation study of a new single-use and 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes on a synthetic anatomic bench model. Four ERCP tasks were performed: guidewire locking (single-use and 1 reusable duodenoscope only), plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. The study schedule included block randomization by 4 duodenoscopes, 4 tasks, and 2 anatomic model ERCP stations. Ability to complete tasks, task completion times, and subjective ratings of overall performance, navigation/pushability, tip control, and image quality on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) were compared among duodenoscopes. Results: All 4 ERCP tasks (total 14 subtasks) were completed by 6 expert endoscopists using all 4 duodenoscopes, with similar task completion times (median, 1.5-8.0 minutes per task) and overall performance ratings by task (median, 8.0-10.0). Navigation/pushability ratings were lower for the single-use duodenoscope than for the 3 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 10.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P <.01). Tip control ratings were similar among all the duodenoscopes (median, 9.0-10.0; P =.77). Image quality ratings were lower for 1 reusable duodenoscope compared with the single-use and other 2 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P <.01). Conclusions: A new single-use duodenoscope was used to simulate 4 ERCP tasks in an anatomic model, with performance ratings and completion times comparable with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074400142&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074400142&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.032
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.032
M3 - Article
C2 - 31679738
AN - SCOPUS:85074400142
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 91
SP - 396
EP - 403
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 2
ER -