Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Variable stiffness colonoscopes: do they offer a better examination?

Sukanya Subramanian1, Douglas K Rex

  • 1Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, USA.

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology
|February 11, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Safety of first surveillance colonoscopy at 12 months after piecemeal EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy·2024
Same author

Using Computer-aided Optical Diagnosis and Expert Review to Evaluate Colorectal Polyps Diagnosed as Normal Mucosa in Pathology.

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association·2024
Same author

Computer-aided detection for colorectal neoplasia in randomized and non-randomized studies.

Endoscopy international open·2024
Same author

Audit of hemostatic clip use after colorectal polyp resection in an academic endoscopy unit.

Endoscopy international open·2024
Same author

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Gastroenterology·2024
Same author

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology·2024
Same journal

Endoscopic techniques to minimize gastroesophageal reflux during peroral endoscopic myotomy.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
Same journal

Postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma and neoplasia: current status and future directions.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
Same journal

The complement system in inflammatory bowel disease: from early observations to emerging frontiers.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
Same journal

Goblet cell-associated antigen passages in health and disease.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
Same journal

Inflammatory bowel diseases 2026: form, function and therapeutic considerations for the epithelial barrier.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
Same journal

Dietary protein as a regulator of colitis and colorectal cancer.

Current opinion in gastroenterology·2026
See all related articles

Variable stiffness colonoscopes show mixed results in improving colonoscopy success rates and patient comfort. While they may reduce the need for extra maneuvers, evidence for significant technical performance improvement is currently lacking.

Area of Science:

  • Gastroenterology
  • Medical Device Technology

Background:

  • Colonoscopy is a vital diagnostic and therapeutic procedure.
  • Advancements in colonoscope technology aim to improve procedural efficiency and patient experience.
  • Variable stiffness colonoscopes represent one such innovation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and synthesize recent literature on variable stiffness colonoscopes.
  • To compare current findings with previously published data.
  • To assess the impact of variable stiffness technology on colonoscopy outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic literature search for relevant studies.
  • Inclusion of 12 papers and abstracts, with 5 published since April 2002.
  • Analysis of data concerning cecal intubation rates, insertion times, ancillary maneuvers, and patient acceptance.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Data regarding variable stiffness colonoscopes are mixed.
  • Potential benefits include improved cecal intubation times for inexperienced endoscopists and enhanced patient acceptance in unsedated procedures.
  • A consistent finding is the reduction in the need for ancillary maneuvers.

Conclusions:

  • Current evidence does not strongly support a significant improvement in the technical performance of colonoscopy with variable stiffness devices.
  • Further research may be needed to fully elucidate the benefits and optimal use of this technology.