Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2020; 12(5): 138-148
Published online May 16, 2020. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i5.138
Published online May 16, 2020. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i5.138
Service factors | Patient factors | Endoscopist factors | Technical factors | Mechanical technologies |
Allocated time per procedure[56] | Patient characteristics (age, medical history)[60] | Training[63] | Withdrawal time[65] | End-of-scope devices (cuffs, caps, rings)[72] |
Morning vs afternoon list[57] | Indication for procedure[61] | Total experience[64] | Position change during withdrawal[66] | Third eye retroscope[73] |
Enhanced patient instructions for bowel preparation[58] | Quality of bowel preparation[62] | Number of colonoscopies per year[64] | Re-examination of right colon[67] | |
Setting (hospital based vs non-hospital based)[59] | Caecal intubation rate[59] | Retroflexion in right colon[67] | ||
Specialty[59] | Rectal retroflexion[68] | |||
Daily case load and fatigue[60] | Water-aided colonoscopy[69] | |||
Antispasmodics[70] | ||||
Second observer[71] |
- Citation: Shandro BM, Emrith K, Slabaugh G, Poullis A, Smith ML. Optical imaging technology in colonoscopy: Is there a role for photometric stereo? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 12(5): 138-148
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v12/i5/138.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v12.i5.138