Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jul 27, 2025; 17(7): 105503
Published online Jul 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i7.105503
Table 1 Assessment of gastroscopy performance and endoscopic image quality, mean ± SD

Experimental group (n = 10)1
Control group (n = 10)2
P value
Duration of gastroscopy287.33 ± 38.15284.78 ± 70.750.673
Image integrity scores30.80 ± 0.4230.90 ± 0.320.739
Image sharpness scores30.50 ± 0.7130.80 ± 0.420.436
Image contrast scores30.10 ± 1.2030.80 ± 0.420.218
Image brightness scores 29.67 ± 1.2330.67 ± 0.500.203
Table 2 Comparison of the operational performance scores between the portable disposable large-channel gastroscope (experimental group) and conventional reusable gastroscopes (control group)
Operational performance
Score
Experimental group
Control group
P value
Image acquisition000
100
200
300
42020
Water supply0000.602
100
200
331
41719
Air supply0000.602
100
200
320
41820
Suction0000.289
100
200
304
42016
Large-knob operation 0000.602
100
200
320
41820
Small-knob operation 0000.108
100
210
350
41420
Body rigidity0000.183
100
200
350
41520
Field of view000
100
200
300
42020
Light illumination0000.183
100
200
305
42015
Tip flexibility000
100
200
300
42020
Working channel 000
100
200
300
42020
Table 3 Comparison of the performance between portable disposable large-channel gastroscope (experimental group) and reusable gastroscopes (control group) in endoscopic submucosal dissection, median (25th-75th percentiles)

Experimental group
Control group
P value
En bloc resection rate (%, n/n)100% (20/20)100% (20/20)-
Submucosal dissection time (minutes)9.92 (8.19, 16.30)11.21 (9.06, 13.25)0.864
Total procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection, minutes18.00 (12.11, 23.80)17.99 (14.82, 20.51)0.938
Total submucosal injection volume (mL)20.50 (11.50, 39.00)20.50 (14.00, 23.00)0.767
Specimen size, mm20.35 (16.45, 24.43)18.72 (17.04, 21.12)0.501
Muscle layer injury---
Complications ---