Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 2480–2483 | Cite as

Colonoscopy with magnetic control system to navigate the forepart of colonoscope shortens the cecal intubation time

  • Chung-Sheng Yang
  • Fat-Moon Suk
  • Chun-Nan Chen
  • Cheng-Long Chuang
  • Joe-Air Jiang
  • Chih-Wen Liu
  • Gi-Shih LienEmail author
Dynamic Manuscript



Colonoscopy is considered the most effective method for diagnosing colorectal diseases, but its application is sometimes limited due to invasiveness, patient intolerance, and the need for sedation.


The aim of this study was to improve the problem of loop formation and shorten the cecal intubation time of colonoscopy by using a magnetic control system (MCS).


Two experienced gastroenterologists, three trainees, and a novice repeated colonoscopy without or with MCS on three colonoscopy training model simulator cases. These cases were divided into introductory (case 2) and challenging levels (cases 4 and 5). The cecal intubation times were recorded.


For all cases, the average cecal intubation times for the experienced gastroenterologists with MCS were significantly shorter than without MCS (case 2: 52.45 vs. 27.65 s, p < 0.001; case 4: 166.7 vs. 120.55 s, p < 0.01; case 5: 130.35 vs. 100.2 s, p < 0.05). Those of the trainees also revealed significantly shorter times with MCS (case 2: 67.27 vs. 51 s, p < 0.01; case 4: 253.27 vs. 170.97 s, p < 0.001; case 5: 144.1 vs. 85.57 s, p < 0.001).


Conducting colonoscopy with MCS is safe and smooth, and shortens the cecal intubation time by navigating the forepart of the colonoscope. In addition, all diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of conventional colonoscopy are retained.


Magnet Colonoscopy Cecal intubation time 



All the authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Videotape showing rotatary operation of magnetic control system. Supplementary material 1 (MPG 83612 kb)

Videotape showing colonoscopy with magnetic control system. Supplementary material 2 (MPG 106424 kb)


  1. 1.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al (2008) American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group, the US Multi-Society Task Force, and the American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 134:1570–1595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmiegel W, Pox C, Adler G et al (2004) Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Verdauungsund Stoff wechselerkrankungen. S3-Guidelines Conference “Colorectal Carcinoma”. Z Gastroenterol 42:1129–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Detsky AS (2001) Screening for colon cancer: can we afford colonoscopy? N Engl J Med 345:607–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Church JM (1994) Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not? Am J Gastroenterol 89:556–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1995) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 38:964–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al (2007) Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 132:2297–2303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanson ME, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH et al (2007) Anatomic factors predictive of incomplete colonoscopy based on findings at CT colonography. Am J Roentgenol 189:774–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson JC, Gonzalez JD, Messina CR et al (2000) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol 95:2784–2787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saifuddin T, Trivedi M, King PD et al (2000) Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults. Gastrointest Endosc 51:314–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Othman MO, Bradley AG, Choudhary A et al (2009) Variable stiffness colonoscope versus regular adult colonoscope: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 41:17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pasha SF, Harrison ME, Das A et al (2007) Utility of double-balloon colonoscopy for completion of colon examination after incomplete colonoscopy with conventional colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 65:848–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keswani RN (2011) Single-balloon colonoscopy versus repeat standard colonoscopy for previous incomplete colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 73:507–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teshima CW, Aktas H, Haringsma J et al (2010) Single-balloon-assisted colonoscopy in patients with previously failed colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 71:1319–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson CS, Haq T, Olafsson S et al (2011) Push enteroscopy has a 96 % cecal intubation rate in colonoscopies that failed because of redundant colons. Gastrointest Endosc 74:341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Gossum A, Munoz-Navas M, Fernandez-Urien I et al (2009) Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer. N Engl J Med 361:264–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y et al (2009) Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 41:1026–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vucelic B, Rex D, Pulanic R et al (2006) The aer-o-scope: proof of concept of a pneumatic, skill-independent, self-propelling, self-navigating colonoscope. Gastroenterology 130:672–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eickhoff A, Van Dam J, Jakobs R et al (2007) Computer-assisted colonoscopy (the Neo Guide Endoscopy System): results of the first human clinical trial “PACE study”. Am J Gastroenterol 102:261–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rösch T, Adler A, Pohl H et al (2008) A motor-driven single-use colonoscope controlled with a hand-held device: a feasibility study in volunteers. Gastrointest Endosc 67:1139–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valdastri P, Ciuti G, Arezzo A et al (2012) Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 26:1238–1246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lien GS, Liu CW, Jiang JA et al (2012) Magnetic control system targeted for capsule endoscopic operations in the stomach: design, fabrication, and in vitro and ex vivo evaluation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(7):2068–2079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plooy AM, Hill A, Horswill MS et al (2012) Construct validation of a physical model colonoscopy simulator. Gastrointest Endosc 76:144–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Classen M (2010) Colonoscopy: basic instrumentation and technique. In: Classen M, Tytgat GNJ, Lightdale CJ (eds) Gastroenterological endoscopy. Thieme, New York, p 145Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chung-Sheng Yang
    • 1
  • Fat-Moon Suk
    • 1
  • Chun-Nan Chen
    • 1
  • Cheng-Long Chuang
    • 2
  • Joe-Air Jiang
    • 3
  • Chih-Wen Liu
    • 4
  • Gi-Shih Lien
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wan Fang HospitalTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Intel-NTU Connected Context Computing CenterTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Bio-Industrial Mechatronics EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations