OBJECTIVE: Implementation of electronic image technology in endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should improve image quality, but systematic data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality and performance of an electronic and a mechanical radial echoendoscope. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Eighty consecutive patients (42 M, mean age 56 years) in a tertiary referral center, without gross pathology (advanced tumors excluded), were prospectively randomized to EUS with the mechanical or electronic echoendoscope. Images from five standardized positions (pancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract) were taken by two examiners of differing experience. Time to acquire images was noted. Penetration depth was also measured. Image quality variables (overall quality, contrast, and structure discrimination) were assessed blindly on the basis of randomly shuffled images during three independent evaluations by the same experienced examiner (mean values were taken), using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 1 (excellent) to 10 (inadequate). RESULTS:Time needed to achieve visualization of the distal common bile duct (CBD) was significantly shorter with the electronic scope (49.7+/-8.6 versus 97.4+/-8.5 s; p<0.001). Image quality with the electronic scope was rated significantly better for all variables assessed, whereas EUS penetration depth was similar in both groups. There were no differences in examiner experience. CONCLUSIONS:Electronic EUS provided better quality images according to the examiner's subjective assessment. An objective advantage was faster identification of the distal CBD.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Implementation of electronic image technology in endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should improve image quality, but systematic data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality and performance of an electronic and a mechanical radial echoendoscope. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty consecutive patients (42 M, mean age 56 years) in a tertiary referral center, without gross pathology (advanced tumors excluded), were prospectively randomized to EUS with the mechanical or electronic echoendoscope. Images from five standardized positions (pancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract) were taken by two examiners of differing experience. Time to acquire images was noted. Penetration depth was also measured. Image quality variables (overall quality, contrast, and structure discrimination) were assessed blindly on the basis of randomly shuffled images during three independent evaluations by the same experienced examiner (mean values were taken), using a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 1 (excellent) to 10 (inadequate). RESULTS: Time needed to achieve visualization of the distal common bile duct (CBD) was significantly shorter with the electronic scope (49.7+/-8.6 versus 97.4+/-8.5 s; p<0.001). Image quality with the electronic scope was rated significantly better for all variables assessed, whereas EUS penetration depth was similar in both groups. There were no differences in examiner experience. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic EUS provided better quality images according to the examiner's subjective assessment. An objective advantage was faster identification of the distal CBD.
Authors: Eun Ji Shin; Mark Topazian; Michael G Goggins; Sapna Syngal; John R Saltzman; Jeffrey H Lee; James J Farrell; Marcia I Canto Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ronald E Kumon; Aparna Repaka; Matthew Atkinson; Ashley L Faulx; Richard C K Wong; Gerard A Isenberg; Yi-Sing Hsiao; Madhu S R Gudur; Cheri X Deng; Amitabh Chak Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Kathrine Rydén Suther; Einar Hopp; Bjarne Smevik; Arnt Eltvedt Fiane; Harald Lauritz Lindberg; Stig Larsen; Charlotte de Lange Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-07-04