A Comparison of SIF-Q180 versus SIF-Y0005 Single Balloon Enteroscopes

Abstract

Introduction: Single Balloon Enteroscopy (SBE) is an important tool in the evaluation and management of small-bowel disease. An enteroscope not yet released by Olympus, the SIF-Y0005, displays a unique combination of two proprietary technologies: passive bending and high force transmission. Cumulatively, this may improve ease of insertion, operator control, and enhance procedural efficiency. In addition, it has a 3.2mm biopsy channel to facilitate instrument insertion. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and insertion depth between the prototype and the SIF-180 enteroscope.Table: No Caption available.Table: No Caption available.Table: No Caption available.Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 65 patients undergoing SBE was performed at Tampa General Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: 39 patients undergoing SBE with the SIF-Q180 (control) vs. 26 with the SIF-Y0005 (prototype). Data on patient demographics, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and insertion depth were compared between groups. The difference for categorical variables was assessed using a X2 test and summarized as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The difference for continuous variable was assessed using independent samples t-test and summarized as mean difference along with 95% CI. To adjust for multiple comparison, Bonferroni correction was applied. The statistical significance was set at 5% for all comparisons. Results: 54 patients underwent anterograde enteroscopy: 18 patients using the prototype enteroscope vs. 36 using the control. 11 patients underwent retrograde enteroscopy: 8 patients using the prototype enteroscope vs. 3 using the control (p=0.036). The diagnostic yield was higher using the prototype enteroscope, with a 2.1 greater odds of finding an abnormality than when using the control enteroscope, but this did not reach statistical significance [OR 2.1 (0.64-6.84);p=0.336]. Therapeutic yield was found to be higher using the prototype enteroscope, with a 1.45 greater odds of treatment performed, but this did not reach statistical significance, [OR 1.45 (0.53-3.91);p-0.647]. The prototype enteroscope had a further insertion depth, however, this did not reach statistical significance [0.58 (-40.892 - 46.048); p=0.906]. Suc cess rate intubating the ileum and performance of retrograde enteroscopy was 100% with the prototype enteroscope. Conclusion: The prototype enteroscope had better diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and insertion depth, although not reaching statistical significance, which was most likely due to small sample size.