Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy - Now on the market. What's next?

Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical medicine is revolutionizing daily practice. In the field of colonoscopy, major endoscopy manufacturers have already launched their own AI products on the market with regulatory approval in Europe and Asia. This commercialization is strongly supported by positive evidence that has been recently established through rigorously designed prospective trials and randomized controlled trials. According to some of the trials, AI tools possibly increase the adenoma detection rate by roughly 50% and contribute to a 7-20% reduction of colonoscopy-related costs. Given that reliable evidence is emerging, together with active commercialization, this seems to be a good time for us to review and discuss the current status of AI in colonoscopy from a clinical perspective. In this review, we introduce the advantages and possible drawbacks of AI tools and explore their future potential including the possibility of obtaining reimbursement.

Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy.

AIM: To combine the benefits of a new thin flexible scope with elimination of excessive looping through the use of an overtube. METHODS: Three separate retrospective series. Series 1: 25 consecutive male patients undergoing unsedated colonoscopy using the new device at a Veteran's hospital in the United States. Series 2: 75 male patients undergoing routine colonoscopy using an adult colonoscope, pediatric colonoscope, or the new device. Series 3: 35 patients who had incomplete colonoscopies using standard instruments. RESULTS: Complete colonoscopy was achieved in all 25 patients in the unsedated series with a median cecal intubation time of 6 min and a median maximal pain score of 3 on a 0-10 scale. In the 75 routine cases, there was significantly less pain with the thin scope compared to standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Of the 35 patients in the previously incomplete colonoscopy series, 33 were completed with the new system. CONCLUSION: Small caliber overtube-assisted colonoscopy is less painful than colonoscopy with standard adult and pediatric colonoscopes. Male patients could undergo unsedated colonoscopy with the new system with relatively little pain. The new device is also useful for most patients in whom colonoscopy cannot be completed with standard instruments.

Work and resources needed for endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large sessile colon polyps often are referred for surgical resection, even when amenable to endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to describe the resource use of endoscopic resection of large sessile colon polyps compared with small polyps with respect to physician time and equipment use. METHODS: Retrospectively, procedure time, medication use, and equipment use were recorded for 184 consecutive patients with sessile colorectal polyps 2 cm or larger in size and for 184 consecutive control patients with only sessile polyps less than 2 cm in size or pedunculated polyps. RESULTS: The mean duration of colonoscopy in patients with large sessile colon polyps averaged 51.4 (SD, 25.6) minutes compared with 20.0 (SD, 8.6) minutes for the control group (P < .0001). The large-polyp group required much more equipment to complete the polypectomy (eg, injection catheters and cautery probes) (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the costs of endoscopic large sessile adenoma resection in physician work and equipment are substantially greater than the costs of resection of small adenomas. These costs may be a deterrent to endoscopic resection of large sessile adenomas and may warrant increased reimbursement for those procedures, particularly if predictions that colonoscopic procedures will become more complex in the future are realized.

Endoscopic shuffling, infection control, and the clinical practice of push enteroscopy.

Failure to identify and diagnose the site and cause of obscure bleeding or some other gastrointestinal disorder may be an indication for push enteroscopy. During this procedure, a long, narrow, flexible gastrointestinal endoscope, known as a push enteroscope, is advanced into the upper gastrointestinal tract to examine and evaluate the proximal section (first one third) of the small bowel. Because of limited funding and inadequate instrument availability, some gastrointestinal endoscopy units may perform this procedure using a colonoscope instead of a push enteroscope. Although not specifically designed for push enteroscopy, colonoscopes are less expensive than push enteroscopes and readily available for clinical use in virtually every gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. The use of a colonoscope or other lower gastrointestinal endoscope to perform push enteroscopy or another upper gastrointestinal procedure (or the use of an upper gastrointestinal endoscope to perform a lower gastrointestinal procedure) is defined in this article as endoscopic shuffling. Although it is arguably efficient and cost effective (and in some instances may improve clinical outcomes), endoscopic shuffling raises a number of economic, legal, medical, and ethical questions and concerns, several of which are discussed in this article, with a particular focus on infection control.

[Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps. A prospective cost analysis in the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit of the Dijon University Hospital]. / Pinces à biopsie jetables versus réutilisables. Evaluation économique prospective dan l'unité d'endoscopic digestive du CHU de Dijon.

AIMS: The goal of this study was to compare the cost of a biopsy session performed with a disposable and a reusable endoscopic biopsy forceps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a 10-month period, 15 new reusable forceps (10 gastric and 5 colonic) were prospectively tracked. A biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps included its current purchase price, the sterilization cost and the number of uses. A biopsy session performed with a disposable forceps was calculated with its current purchase price and its incineration cost. RESULTS: At the end of the study, only one reusable forceps had broken and the number of uses was 65. The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric reusable forceps was euro 7.52 (including euro 1.92 of sterilization cost) and euro 8.67 for a reusable colonic forceps (with the same sterilization cost). The cost of a biopsy session performed with a gastric or a colonic disposable forceps was euro 11.98. From 44 uses for a colonic forceps and 37 uses for a gastric one, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was already cheaper. CONCLUSION: In this study, a biopsy session performed with a reusable forceps was less expensive than with a disposable one. However, the extra cost generated by the disposable forceps may be offset by an easier inventory control and the reduction of the cross contamination risk.