Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2022; 28(35): 5093-5110
Published online Sep 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i35.5093
Published online Sep 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i35.5093
No. | Ideal robotic colonoscope features |
1 | Affordable |
2 | Acceptable to patients and endoscopists |
3 | More comfortable than conventional colonoscopy |
4 | Lower risk than conventional colonoscopy |
5 | Improved caecal intubation rate compared to conventional colonoscopy |
6 | Offer at least comparable mucosal visibility with the option of image enhancement (virtual chromoendoscopy) |
7 | Capable of taking biopsies and therapeutics such as polypectomy |
8 | Offer integration with artificial intelligence for polyp detection and characterisation |
9 | Ideally have autonomous features, such as self-navigation |
10 | Reduce the training time to achieve competence compared to conventional colonoscopy |
11 | Procedure times should be less than, but must not be significantly longer than, conventional colonoscopy |
12 | Have sustainability in mind in the manufacturing, reprocessing or disposal of the device |
- Citation: Winters C, Subramanian V, Valdastri P. Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(35): 5093-5110
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i35/5093.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i35.5093