Abstract
Two types of ultrathin scopes were evaluated for transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in endoscopic GI cancer screening. Each of 108 patients who underwent EDG with either conventional (C: 5.5mm diameter 1 light guide) or newly designed (N: 5.8mm diameter 2 light guides) ultrathin scope were compared. The nasal insertion rate was 93.5% and 90.7%, average examination time (observation only) was 418.7 sec, 429.0 sec with C and N, respectively, showing no significant difference. The rate of no nasomucosal injury was 74.3% and 99.0% with C and N, respectively, showing nasal mucosal damage occurs less frequently with N. Endoscopic feasibility assessment of pylorus passage, second duodenum insertion, angulus observation, lens washing and target biopsy for each lesion showed no significant difference except angulus observation that was superior with N. Although both luminosity and image quality were superior with N, luminosity was poor at a rate of 10.4% and 3.4%, and image quality was poor at a rate of 9.4% and 4.6% with C and N, respectively, at long distance observation of the upper body. The overall quality and burden of endoscopists were superior with N. Transnasal EGD with the newly designed 2-light guide scope is expected to alleviate nasomucosal injury and burden of endoscopists.
