Zhao CY, Ning B, Feng XX, Li HK, Zhang WG, Dong H, Chai NL, Linghu EQ. Comparison of a portable disposable large-channel gastroscope and a conventional reusable gastroscope in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(7): 105503 [DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i7.105503]
Corresponding Author of This Article
En-Qiang Linghu, PhD, Department of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China. xhnkyxb@126.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Basic Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Chen-Yi Zhao, Bo Ning, Xiu-Xue Feng, Hui-Kai Li, Wen-Gang Zhang, Hao Dong, Ning-Li Chai, En-Qiang Linghu, Department of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Co-first authors: Chen-Yi Zhao and Bo Ning.
Author contributions: Zhao CY and Ning B are co-first authors and contributed equally to this work, including designing the study, acquiring and analyzing data from the experiments, and writing the manuscript; Zhao CY and Ning B and Dong H designed the experiments and conducted clinical data collection, performed postoperative follow-up, and recorded the data; Zhao CY, Ning B, Feng XX, Li HK, Zhang WG, and Dong H conducted the collation and statistical analyses; Chai NL and Linghu EQ revised the manuscript for important intellectual content; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Institutional animal care and use committee statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Animal Experiment Committee of the Chinese PLA General Hospital.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
ARRIVE guidelines statement: The authors have read the ARRIVE guidelines, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the ARRIVE guidelines.
Data sharing statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: En-Qiang Linghu, PhD, Department of Digestive Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China. xhnkyxb@126.com
Received: March 19, 2025 Revised: April 15, 2025 Accepted: May 16, 2025 Published online: July 27, 2025 Processing time: 126 Days and 3.2 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Conventional reusable endoscopes have high disinfection costs because of their large size. In this study, we compared the effectiveness, safety, and operation performance of the portable disposable large-channel endoscope that we developed with those of a conventional gastroscope in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
AIM
To compare two gastroscopes in ESD for effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
Ten Bama pigs were subjected to gastroscopy and ESD after general anesthesia. The experiment was completed by four experienced endoscopists. First, two endoscopists randomly selected the portable disposable large-channel or conventional gastroscope to complete gastroscopy procedures. The other two endoscopists assessed the quality of endoscopic images. After endoscopy, all of the endoscopists randomly used the portable disposable large-channel endoscope or the conventional gastroscope for ESD. Endoscopic operation performance, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, success rate of en bloc resection, muscular injury rate, and complications were compared between the endoscopes.
RESULTS
No significant differences in gastroscopy duration or in the integrity, sharpness, saturation, and brightness of the gastroscopic images were observed between the gastroscopes. For ESD, no significant differences in endoscopic operation performance, incision time, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, or success rate of en bloc resection were observed between the gastroscopes. Neither gastroscope caused muscular injury or treatment-related complications.
CONCLUSION
The portable disposable large-channel endoscope can be used safely and effectively for gastroscopy and treatment.
Core Tip: The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) To evaluate the safety and feasibility of the portable disposable large-channel endoscope for gastrointestinal examination and endoscopic submucosal dissection through animal experiments; and (2) To evaluate the quality of the endoscopic images, operational performance, and treatment efficiency. The results showed that the portable disposable large-channel endoscope can be used safely and effectively for gastroscopy and treatment.
