Image Quality Analysis of Various Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: Why Image Quality Is a Prerequisite for Proper Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy

Arising from human curiosity in terms of the desire to look within the human body, endoscopy has undergone significant advances in modern medicine. Direct visualization of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract by traditional endoscopy was first introduced over 50 years ago, after which fairly rapid advancement from rigid esophagogastric scopes to flexible scopes and high definition videoscopes has occurred. In an effort towards early detection of precancerous lesions in the GI tract, several high-technology imaging scopes have been developed, including narrow band imaging, autofocus imaging, magnified endoscopy, and confocal microendoscopy. However, these modern developments have resulted in fundamental imaging technology being skewed towards red-green-blue and this technology has obscured the advantages of other endoscope techniques. In this review article, we have described the importance of image quality analysis using a survey to consider the diversity of endoscope system selection in order to better achieve diagnostic and therapeutic goals. The ultimate aims can be achieved through the adoption of modern endoscopy systems that obtain high image quality.

Identification of neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps with magnifying endoscopy and electronic colonoscopy / 第三军医大学学报

Objective To compare the real time diagnosis and treatment values of magnifying endoscopy and electronic colonoscopy Methods A total of 105 colorectal polyps for colonoscopic examination were included in this study A magnifying videoscope with zoom ranges from ?1 to ?100 magnification and a common electronic endoscopy combined with indigocarmine dye were employed to observe the pit patterns of colorectal polyps Pit patterns were analyzed according to Kudo's modified classification as follows: ①type Ⅰ: round pit; ②type Ⅱ: asteroid pit; ③type Ⅲs: tubular or round pit, which is smaller than a normal pit (type Ⅰ); ④type ⅢL: tubular or round pit, which is larger than a normal pit (type Ⅰ); ⑤type Ⅳ: dendritic or gyrus like pit; ⑥type Ⅴ: irregular or amorphous pit; and ⑦ mixed type Results Magnifying colonoscopy revealed that phenotypes of non neoplastic and neoplastic lesions were 78 57% and 21 43% in inflammatory and hyperplastic polyps, 3 33% and 96 67% in neoplastic polyps, and 100% non neoplastic phenotype in juvenile polyps, respectively Pit pattern analysis according to Kudo's modified classification showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic and non neoplastic lesions was 96 67% and 80%, and specificity was 86 57% and 94 73%, respectively The overall diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from non neoplastic lesions was 89 52% Pit pattern by common electronic colonoscopy showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic and non neoplastic lesions was 88 3% and 73 3%, and specificity was 81 5% and 82 5%, respectively The overall diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from non neoplastic lesions was 82% Conclusion The pit pattern analysis of colorectal lesions by magnifying colonoscopy or electronic endoscopy combined with indigocarmine dye is a useful method for the identification of non neoplastic polyps, adenomas and invasive carcinomas in the large bowel Therefore, it may be possible to determine, at the time of colonoscopy, which lesions should be removed endoscopically and surgically

Study on the relationship between the pit pattern and histology of colorectal polyps / 中华消化内镜杂志

Objective The aim of this study was to reveal the clinical features of colorectal polyps by investigating its endoscopic features using a magnifying videoscope. Methods One hundred and five colorectal polyps presented in colonoscopy were included in this study. A magnifying videoscope with a zoom ranging from ? 1 to ? 100 magnification combined with indigocarmine dye was employed to observe the pit pattern of colorectal polyps. Pit pattern was analyzed according to Kudo' s modified classification as follows; (1) type Ⅰ ; round pit; (2) type Ⅱ; asteroid; (3) type Ⅳs; tubular or round pit, which is smaller than the normal pit (type Ⅰ ) ; (4) type ⅢL: tubular or round pit, which is larger than the normal pit (type Ⅰ ) ; (5 ) type Ⅳ : dendritic or gyrus - like pit; ( 6 ) type Ⅴ : irregular or amorphous pit; and ( 7 ) mixed type. Types Ⅰ and Ⅱ represented the pit pattern of nonneoplastic polyps and types Ⅲ L , Ⅲs, Ⅳ , Ⅴ , and mixed type represented the adenomatous polyps represented neoplastic polyps. Results In all samples of polyps, 17 were of the pedunculated type, 40 subpedunculated type and 48 sessile type. Among the 17 pe-dunculated type, 12 were type Ⅰ ,Ⅱ pit pattern. In those subpedunculated types, type Ⅰ , Ⅱ pit pattern were found in 15. 0% (6/40) , type ⅢL , Ⅲs , Ⅳ, and Ⅴ were detected in 85. 0% (34/40) . Type Ⅰ ,Ⅱ pit pattern were found in 41. 7% (20/48), type Ⅰ,ⅢL, ⅢS, Ⅳ, and V were in 58.3% (28/48) in sessile type. Of all polyps 88 (83. 8% ) were situated between the splenic flexure and rectum , but'no correlation was found between pit pattern and location of polyps. The incidences of neoplastic changes in the lesions with pit pattern Ⅰ,Ⅱ ,ⅢL, Ⅲs,Ⅳ, Ⅴ , and mixed type were 0% , 11. 8% , 77. 3% , 75. 0% , 100. 0% , 100. 0% , and 70. 0% , respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic and nonneoplastic polyps were 96. 7% and 80. 0% , and specificity were 86. 6% and 94. 7% . The overall diagnostic accuracy in differentiating neoplastic from nonneoplastic polyps was 89. 5% . Conclusions The pit pattern analysis of colorectal polyps by magnifying colonoscopy combined with indigocarmine staining is a useful and objective tool fur differentiating nonneoplastic lesions from adenomas or invasive carcinoma of the large bowel. There-fore it may be possible to determine, at the lime of colonoscopy, which lesions require treatment or not, and which one should be removed by endoacopy, or by surgery.