Published online Feb 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i7.2140
Peer-review started: June 29, 2014
First decision: July 16, 2014
Revised: July 24, 2014
Accepted: September 18, 2014
Article in press: September 19, 2014
Published online: February 21, 2015
Processing time: 227 Days and 7.9 Hours
AIM: To measure in vitro diameter of imitational varices using a self-made endoscopic scale and confirm its accuracy and clinical feasibility.
METHODS: A catheter was introduced into the endoscope accessory channel and attached to a zebra wire guide that was used as a stylet. The wire guide was fixed onto the tip of the catheter by a soft and thin string. By gently advancing the stylet into the catheter, the width of the opening loop at the tip of the endoscope approximated the diameter of the imitational varices. Measurements performed in vitro using this self-made endoscopic ruler were compared to measurements of simulative varices.
RESULTS: At the handle, the sleeve moving distance ranged from 5 to 14 mm. There was no obvious proportional relationship between the sleeve movement distance and endoscopic measurement ruler. The results indicated that the gap between the endoscopic measurement and actual measurement of the object size tended to close. The in vitro measurement of the diameter of the simulative varices showed that the two kinds of measuring methods were not significantly different with respect to their accuracy (P = 0.8499).
CONCLUSION: In vitro experiments confirmed that using a self-designed endoscopic ruler to measure the diameter of simulative varices was objective, accurate and feasible.
Core tip: There are no specific criteria for variceal size assessment. There are different conventions for grading variceal size but little is known about their relative value. Subjective bias and inter-observer variation in the endoscopic evaluation of these predictors cannot be excluded. In this study, we compared the accuracy of in vitro measurement of the diameter of simulative varices by ruler with a self-made endoscopic scale. The results showed that the difference between the two methods was not statistically significant.