Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 909–914 | Cite as

Experience with the New 4-Way, 5.5-mm Ultrathin Endoscope: A Case Series

  • Deepak Agrawal
  • Richard C. K. Wong
  • Gerard Isenberg
  • Ashley Faulx
  • Amitabh Chak
Case Report


Background and Study Aims

Use of ultrathin (ut) endoscopes is sometimes limited by their design (outer diameter, tip angulation and image quality). New ut-endoscopes are being designed to address these limitations. A new utendoscope, XGIF-PV70N5 (Olympus America Inc.), with an outer diameter of 5.5 mm, 4-way angulation and narrow band imaging has recently been introduced. In this study, we report our subjective experience with this prototype ut-endoscope and discuss the practical uses of its new features.

Patients and Methods

In this prospective case series, ut-endoscopy was performed on selected patients scheduled for endoscopy at a tertiary referral center.


Ut-endoscopy was successfully performed on 15 patients with varied indications. The 4-way angulation proved advantageous but not necessary. Narrow band imaging was not very useful in this group of patients. The image quality was satisfactory.


The prototype ut-endoscope can be used for a broad range of indications. The 4-way angulation may prove advantageous in specific situations and the role of narrow-band imaging remains to be defined.


Ultrathin endoscopy Unsedated endoscopy Cholangioscopy Small caliber endoscope 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Botoman VA. Ultrathin crossroads: is smaller better? Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:377–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tatsumi Y, Harada A, Matsumoto T, et al. Feasibility and tolerance of 2-way and 4 way angulation videoscopes for unsedated patients undergoing transnasal EGD in GI cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:1021–1027.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Preiss C, Charton JP, Schumacher B, et al. A randomized trial of unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus peroral small-caliber EGD versus conventional EGD. Endoscopy. 2003;35:641–646.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mori A, Fushimi N, Asano T, et al. Cardiovascular tolerance in unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: prospective randomized comparison between transnasal and conventional oral procedures. Dig Endosc. 2006;18:282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adler DG, Gostout CJ, Baron TH. Percutaneous transgastric placement of jejunal feeding tubes with an ultrathin endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:106–110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vitale MA, Villotti G, D’Alba L, et al. Unsedated transnasal percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in selected patients. Endoscopy. 2005;37:48–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, et al. Peroral cholangioscopic diagnosis of biliary-tract diseases by using narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:730–736.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak Agrawal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard C. K. Wong
    • 2
  • Gerard Isenberg
    • 2
  • Ashley Faulx
    • 2
  • Amitabh Chak
    • 2
  1. 1.University Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.University Hospitals Case Medical CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations