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
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 gastroscopy | 287.33 ± 38.15 | 284.78 ± 70.75 | 0.673 |
Image integrity scores | 30.80 ± 0.42 | 30.90 ± 0.32 | 0.739 |
Image sharpness scores | 30.50 ± 0.71 | 30.80 ± 0.42 | 0.436 |
Image contrast scores | 30.10 ± 1.20 | 30.80 ± 0.42 | 0.218 |
Image brightness scores | 29.67 ± 1.23 | 30.67 ± 0.50 | 0.203 |
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 acquisition | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 0 | ||
4 | 20 | 20 | ||
Water supply | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.602 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 3 | 1 | ||
4 | 17 | 19 | ||
Air supply | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.602 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 2 | 0 | ||
4 | 18 | 20 | ||
Suction | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.289 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 4 | ||
4 | 20 | 16 | ||
Large-knob operation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.602 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 2 | 0 | ||
4 | 18 | 20 | ||
Small-knob operation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.108 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 1 | 0 | ||
3 | 5 | 0 | ||
4 | 14 | 20 | ||
Body rigidity | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.183 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 5 | 0 | ||
4 | 15 | 20 | ||
Field of view | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 0 | ||
4 | 20 | 20 | ||
Light illumination | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.183 |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 5 | ||
4 | 20 | 15 | ||
Tip flexibility | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 0 | ||
4 | 20 | 20 | ||
Working channel | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
1 | 0 | 0 | ||
2 | 0 | 0 | ||
3 | 0 | 0 | ||
4 | 20 | 20 |
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, minutes | 18.00 (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, mm | 20.35 (16.45, 24.43) | 18.72 (17.04, 21.12) | 0.501 |
Muscle layer injury | - | - | - |
Complications | - | - | - |
- Citation: 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
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i7/105503.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i7.105503