Contact Request
  • IMAGINE...
    Tomorrow is Now


    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    Biopsies Were Needless

    Is optical diagnosis a reality today?
    Can Olympus technologies improve
    diagnosis and the clinical outcome?
    Find out what numerous studies
    have shown. And imagine the impact
    on daily work.

    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    Your Thumb Could Maximize ADR

    Is it possible to increase lesion detection rates with technology? Can Olympus technologies aid diagnosis and help to increase ADR? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on CRC screening programs.

    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    an Endoscope Acting Like a Compass

    Is ScopeGuide navigation useful in the colon? Is it possible to maximize cecal intubation rates without prolonging procedural time? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on
    procedural efficiency and patient comfort.

    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    a Gentle Endoscope

    Is it possible to increase patient acceptance of colonoscopy? Can Olympus technologies help overcome the challenges inherent in the procedure? Find out how they can improve
    patient satisfaction during and after colonoscopy.

    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    an Accountant Would Engineer an Endoscope

    Is it possible to reduce costs and improve clinical
    outcomes at the same time?
    How can Olympus technologies play a role?
    Find out what numerous studies have shown.
    And imagine the impact on costs and time efficiency
    in your endoscopy unit.

    Learn more
  • IMAGINE...
    an Endoscope Would
    Have an Analgesic Effect

    Is it possible to reduce analgesia and sedation needs during colonoscopy? Can Olympus technologies improve patient comfort without compromising efficiency? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

    Learn more

IMAGINE... Tomorrow is Now

The technologies contained in the EVIS EXERA III endoscopy system can help you realize the future of endoscopy today, with tangible benefits for both staff and patients.

Learn here about how Olympus technologies can contribute to the future of your department‎ - and how numerous studies have proven the benefits of EVIS EXERA III.

EVIS EXERA III – itʼs proven.

IMAGINE...
Biopsies Were Needless

Is optical diagnosis a reality today?
Can Olympus technologies improve
diagnosis and the clinical outcome?
Find out what numerous studies
have shown. And imagine the impact
on daily work.

Explore how NBI and Dual Focus can effectively reduce biopsies.

Why are biopsies taken?

Biopsies are important to histologically assess tissue of suspicious lesions and differentiate malignant, inflammatory, or infectious conditions.

What issues exist with biopsies?

Biopsies are only small interventions bearing a minimum risk for the patient (1), but this may differ for patients medicated with anticoagulants. (1) Taken together, biopsies are valuable for risk stratification with very low complication ratios. Their biggest drawback is cost for the histological examination.

According to current guidelines, biopsies are randomly taken in Barrett’s Esophagus surveillance, stomach, and CRC high-risk patients (e.g. IBD). (2,3,4) Most of these biopsies do not contain dysplastic tissue, since they are not targeted, leading to high costs with moderate detection capability, warranting a more efficient modality. (5,6)

How can Olympus technology help to reduce biopsies?

NBI has been vastly studied to assess its capability to detect and diagnose gastrointestinal lesions:

  • The diagnostic accuracy of NBI for colorectal lesions has been shown to be >90% (7,8,9). Dual Focus raised the ratio of high-confidence decisions. (9) Thus, NBI with Dual Focus may help to reduce the need to biopsy lesions prior to treatment.

  • NBI proved to be a reliable modality for targeted biopsy in Barrett’s Esophagus – identifying more neoplasia but using significantly less biopsies. (10,11) Although, biopsy cannot be avoided completely, NBI may thus improve quality and cost-effectiveness of Barrett’s Esophagus surveillance.

  • European and American gestroenterology societies endorsed the use of NBI for optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps (ESGE, ASGE)(25,27) and targeted biopsy in Barrett's Esophagus surveillance (ASGE).(47)

Also for other gastrointestinal indications, NBI targeted biopsy is investigated and seems to be a promising tool to improve clinical outcomes. (12,13)

  • 1.) Barkun et al. 2006; Gastrointest Endosc. 63(6):741-5
  • 2.) Evans 2012; GastrointestEndosc. 76(6): 1087-94
  • 3.) Yang et al. 2015 Gastroenterology149(4); 1082-7
  • 4.) Shergill et al 2015; GastrointestEndosc. 81(5): 1101-1121.e13
  • 5.) Kariv et al. 2009; ClinGastroenterolHepatol 7(6):653-8
  • 6.) van den Broek et al. 2014; Am J Gastroenterol 109(5):715-22
  • 7.) Hewett et al. 2012; Gastroenterology 143; 599-607
  • 8.) Hayashi et al. 2013; GastroinestEndosc. 78(4); 625-32
  • 9.) Singh et al. 2013; Dig Endosc. 25 Suppl 2:16-20
  • 10.) Sharma et al. 2013; Gut 62 (1):15-21.
  • 11.) Qumseya et al. 2013; ClinGastroenterolHepatol.11(12):1562-70.e1-2
  • 12.) Leifeld et al. 2015; Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 13(10):1776-1781.e1
  • 13.) DeLuca et al 2013; DiagnTherEndosc. 2013:580526.
  • 25.) ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. 2015; GastrointestEndosc. 81(3):502.e1-502.e16
  • 27.) Kaminski et al. 2014; Endoscopy 46(5):435-49
  • 47.) ASGE Technology Committee et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):684-698.e7.

Clinical studies

  • *1.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 May;63(6):741-5.

    Update on Endoscopic Tissue Sampling Devices.

    • Barkun A
    • Liu J
    • Carpenter S
    • Chotiprasidhi P
    • Chuttani R
    • Ginsberg G
    • Hussain N
    • Silverman W
    • Taitelbaum G
    • Petersen BT
    View abstract
  • *2.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Dec;76(6):1087-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.004.

    The Role of Endoscopy in Barrett‘s Esophagus and Other Premalignant Conditions of the Esophagus.

    • Evans JA
    • Early DS
    • Fukami N
    • Ben-Menachem T
    • Chandrasekhara V
    • Chathadi KV
    • Decker GA
    • Fanelli RD
    • Fisher DA
    • Foley KQ
    • Hwang JH
    • Jain R
    • Jue TL
    • Khan KM
    • Lightdale J
    • Malpas PM
    • Maple JT
    • Pasha SF
    • Saltzman JR
    • Sharaf RN
    • Shergill A
    • Dominitz JA
    • Cash BD
    View abstract
  • *3.)

    Gastroenterology. 2015 Oct;149(4):1082-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.07.039. Epub 2015 Aug 14.

    American Gastroenterological Association Institute Guideline on the Role of Upper Gastrointestinal Biopsy to Evaluate Dyspepsia in the Adult Patient in the Absence of Visible Mucosal Lesions

    • Yang YX
    • Brill J
    • Krishnan P
    • Leontiadis G
    View abstract
  • *4.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 May;81(5):1101-21.e1-13. doi: 10.1016/j. ie.2014.10.030. Epub 2015 Mar 20.

    The Role of Endoscopy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    • Shergill AK
    • Lightdale JR
    • Bruining DH
    • Acosta RD
    • Chandrasekhara V
    • Chathadi KV
    • Decker GA
    • Early DS
    • Evans JA
    • Fanelli RD
    • Fisher DA
    • Fonkalsrud L
    • Foley K
    • Hwang JH
    • Jue TL
    • Khashab MA
    • Muthusamy VR
    • Pasha SF
    • Saltzman JR
    • Sharaf R
    • Cash BD
    • DeWitt JM
    View abstract
  • *5.)

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jun;7(6):653-8; quiz 606. doi: 10.1016/j. cgh.2008.11.024. Epub 2008 Dec 13.

    The Seattle Protocol Does Not More Reliably Predict the Detection of Cancer at the Time of Esophagectomy Than a Less Intensive Surveillance Protocol

    • Kariv R
    • Plesec TP
    • Goldblum JR
    • Bronner M
    • Oldenburgh M
    • Rice TW
    • Falk GW
    View abstract
  • *6.)

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 May;109(5):715-22. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.93. Epub 2011 Mar 22.

    Random Biopsies Taken During Colonoscopic Surveillance of Patients with Longstanding Ulcerative Colitis: Low Yield and Absence of Clinical Consequences

    • van den Broek FJ
    • Stokkers PC
    • Reitsma JB
    • Boltjes RP
    • Ponsioen CY
    • Fockens P
    • Dekker E
    View abstract
  • *7.)

    Gastroenterology. 2012 Sep;143(3):599-607.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.006. Epub 2012 May 15.

    Validation of a Simple Classification System for Endoscopic Diagnosis of Small Colorectal Polyps Using Narrow-Band Imaging

    • Hewett DG
    • Kaltenbach T
    • Sano Y
    • Tanaka S
    • Saunders BP
    • Ponchon T
    • Soetikno R
    • Rex DK
    View abstract
  • *8.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):625-32. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.185. Epub 2013 Jul 30.

    Endoscopic Prediction of Deep Submucosal Invasive Carcinoma: Validation of the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) Classification

    • Hayashi N
    • Tanaka S
    • Hewett DG
    • Kaltenbach TR
    • Sano Y
    • Ponchon T
    • Saunders BP
    • Rex DK
    • Soetikno RM
    View abstract
  • *9.)

    Dig Endosc. 2013 May;25 Suppl 2:16-20. doi: 10.1111/den.12075.

    Narrow-Band Imaging with Dual Focus Magnification in Differentiating Colorectal Neoplasia

    • Singh R
    • Jayanna M
    • Navadgi S
    • Ruszkiewicz A
    • Saito Y
    • Uedo N
    View abstract
  • *10.)

    Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):15-21. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300962. Epub 2012 Feb 7.

    Standard Endoscopy with Random Biopsies Versus Narrow Band Imaging Targeted Biopsies in Barrett‘s Oesophagus: A Prospective, International, Randomised Controlled Trial

    • Sharma P
    • Hawes RH
    • Bansal A
    • Gupta N
    • Curvers W
    • Rastogi A
    • Singh M
    • Hall M
    • Mathur SC
    • Wani SB
    • Hoffman B
    • Gaddam S
    • Fockens P
    • Bergman JJ
    View abstract
  • *11.)

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Dec;11(12):1562-70.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j. cgh.2013.06.017. Epub 2013 Jul 12.

    Advanced Imaging Technologies Increase Detection of Dysplasia and Neoplasia in Patients with Barrett‘s Esophagus: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

    • Qumseya BJ
    • Wang H
    • Badie N
    • Uzomba RN
    • Parasa S
    • White DL
    • Wolfsen H
    • Sharma P
    • Wallace MB
    View abstract
  • *12.)

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct;13(10):1776-1781.e1. doi: 10.1016/j. cgh.2015.04.172. Epub 2015 May 5.

    White-Light or Narrow-Band Imaging Colonoscopy in Surveillance of Ulcerative Colitis: A Prospective Multicenter Study

    • Leifeld L
    • Rogler G
    • Stallmach A
    • Schmidt C
    • Zuber-Jerger I
    • Hartmann F
    • Plauth M
    • Drabik A
    • Hofstädter F
    • Dienes HP
    • Kruis W
    View abstract
  • *13.)

    Diagn Ther Endosc. 2013;2013:580526. doi: 10.1155/2013/580526. Epub 2013 Aug 6.

    Narrow Band Imaging with Magnification Endoscopy for Celiac Disease: Results from a Prospective, Single-Center Study

    • De Luca L
    • Ricciardiello L
    • Rocchi MB
    • Fabi MT
    • Bianchi ML
    • de Leone A
    • Fiori S
    • Baroncini D
    View abstract
  • *25.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):502.e1-502.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022. Epub 2015 Jan 16.

    ASGE Technology Committee Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing the ASGE PIVI Thresholds for Adopting Real-Time Endoscopic Assessment of the Histology of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps

    • Abu Dayyeh BK
    • Thosani N
    • Konda V
    • Wallace MB
    • Rex DK
    • Chauhan SS
    • Hwang JH
    • Komanduri S
    • Manfredi M
    • Maple JT
    • Murad FM
    • Siddiqui UD
    • Banerjee S
    View abstract
  • *27.)

    Endoscopy. 2014 May;46(5):435-49. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1365348. Epub 2014 Mar 17.

    Advanced Imaging for Detection and Differentiation of Colorectal Neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

    • Kamiński MF
    • Hassan C
    • Bisschops R
    • Pohl J
    • Pellisé M
    • Dekker E
    • Ignjatovic-Wilson A
    • Hoffman A
    • Longcroft-Wheaton G
    • Heresbach D
    • Dumonceau JM
    • East JE
    View abstract
  • *47.)

    ASGE Technology Committee et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):684-698.e7.

    ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

    • ASGE Technology Committee
    • Thosani N
    • Abu Dayyeh BK
    • Sharma P
    • Aslanian HR
    • Enestvedt BK
    • Komanduri S
    • Manfredi M
    • Navaneethan U
    • Maple JT
    • Pannala R
    • Parsi MA
    • Smith ZL
    • Sullivan SA
    • Banerjee S
    View abstract

Technologies

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

  • Improves visibility of blood vessels and mucosal structures
  • Facilitates observation of tumors typically aggregating blood vessels
  • Uses only wavelengths absorbed by hemoglobin for maximum contrast
  • Optical image technology available at the push of a button
Dual focus

Dual Focus

  • Two- stage optical technology for precise observation of mucosal surfaces
  • Easy to operate at the push of a button, no need to adjust focus
  • Advanced diagnosis packaged in a routine endoscope

IMAGINE...
Your Thumb Could
Maximize ADR

Is it possible to increase lesion detection rates with technology? Can Olympus technologies aid diagnosis and help to increase ADR? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on CRC screening programs.

Explore how NBI and Dual Focus can contribute to a better detection.

What is ADR?

Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) is defined as the percentage of average risk patients age 50 or older undergoing first time screening colonoscopy having one or more adenomatous polyps.

A very recent study showed that ADR is correlated to the risk of interval cancer, marking ADR as a quality indicator in colonoscopy. (14)

Why is ADR difficult to determine?

ADR is a cumulative indicator which is influenced by a number of demographic, procedural, and equipment-related factors. ADR is influenced by gender (15) and differs between facilities depending on their patient demography. Various procedural factors such as withdrawal time (16), preparation quality (17), scheduling (18), and use of water-exchange colonoscopy (19), as well as the use of HDTV equipment (20) were identified to significantly increase ADR.

To properly report and monitor ADR, feedback from histology is required. Accordingly, additional time and effort is needed to adjust patient records once the histology results are known.

How can Olympus technology help you to increase your ADR?

Early studies with EVIS EXERA III and EVIS LUCERA ELITE indicate that NBI improves lesion detection in the colon. (21,22)

  • A single-center RCT with EVIS EXERA III showed that ADR increased by approximately 14% to 48.3% when using NBI compared to white light (21). In a multi-center RCT NBI with EVIS LUCERA ELITE decreased polyp miss rates by 29%. (22) Thus, both systems effectively contribute to improve detection.

  • Efficient reporting of polyp histology is critical to monitor ADR. Here, three large meta-analyses prove that optical diagnosis with NBI is feasible and fulfills the ASGE PIVI criteria for implementing a RESECT & LEAVE and RESECT & DISCARD strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps (<5 mm). (23,24,25)

  • Dual Focus may also be of importance for the diagnostic process: Dual Focus NBI was not only very accurate in optical diagnosis but also increased the ratio of high-confidence decisions by 14%. (26)

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) implemented optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps into their guideline (27), which may not only be important for the diagnostic process but also allow an easier way to monitor ADR and thus raise the quality of screening colonoscopies.

  • 14.) Corley et al. 2014; N Engl J Med. 370;14
  • 15.) Kahi et al. 2014; GastrointestEndosc. 79(3):448-54.
  • 16.) Shaukat et al. 2015; Gastroenterology 2015 Jul 9 (ahead of print)
  • 17.) Cheng et al. 2015, Digestion 2015 Sep 10 (ahead of print)
  • 18.) Gurudu et al. 2011; Am J Gastroenterol. 106(8):1466-71
  • 19.) Hsieh et al. 2014; Am J Gastroenterol. 109(9):1390-400
  • 20.) Subramanian et al. 2011; Endoscopy; 43: 499-505
  • 21.) Leung et al. 2014; Am J Gastroenterol. 109(6):855-63
  • 22.) Horimatsu et al. 2015; Int J Colorectal Dis. 30(7):947-54.
  • 23.) McGill et al. 2013; Gut 62(12):1704-13
  • 24.) Wanders et al. 2013; Lancet Oncol. 14(13):1337-47
  • 25.) ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. 2015; GastrointestEndosc. 81(3):502.e1-502.e16
  • 26.) Kaltenbach et al. 2014; Gut 64(10):1569-77
  • 27.) Kaminski et al. 2014; Endoscopy 46(5):435-49

Clinical studies

  • *14.)

    N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306

    Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death

    • Corley DA
    • Jensen CD
    • Marks AR
    • Zhao WK
    • Lee JK
    • Doubeni CA
    • Zauber AG
    • de Boer J
    • Fireman BH
    • Schottinger JE
    • Quinn VP
    • Ghai NR
    • Levin TR
    • Quesenberry CP
    View abstract
  • *15.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar;79(3):448-54.

    Improving Measurement of the Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Per Colonoscopy Quality Metric: The Indiana University Experience

    • KAHI CJ
    • VEMULAPALLI KC
    • JOHNSON CS
    • REX DK
    View abstract
  • *17.)

    Digestion. 2015;92(3):156-64.

    Impact of Bowel Preparation with Low-Volume (2-Liter) and Intermediate-Volume (3-Liter) Polyethylene Glycol on Colonoscopy Quality: A Prospective Observational Study

    • CHENG CL
    • KUO YL
    • LIU NJ
    • LIN CH
    • TANG JH
    • TSUI YN
    • LEE BP
    • SU MY
    • CHIU CT
    View abstract
  • *18.)

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Aug;106(8):1466-71. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.125. Epub 2011 Apr 19.

    Adenoma Detection Rate Is not Influenced by the Timing of Colonoscopy When Performed in Half-Day Blocks

    • Gurudu SR
    • Ratuapli SK
    • Leighton JA
    • Heigh RI
    • Crowell MD
    View abstract
  • *19.)

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;109(9):1390-400. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.126. Epub 2014 Jun 3.

    A Patient-Blinded Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Air Insufflation, Water Immersion, and Water Exchange During Minimally Sedated Colonoscopy

    • Hsieh YH
    • Koo M
    • Leung FW
    View abstract
  • *20.)

    Endoscopy. 2011 Jun;43(6):499-505. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256207. Epub 2011 Feb 28.

    High Definition Colonoscopy vs. Standard Video Endoscopy for the Detection of Colonic Polyps: A Meta-Analysis

    • Subramanian V
    • Mannath J
    • Hawkey CJ
    • Ragunath K
    View abstract
  • *21.)

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;109(6):855-63. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.83. Epub 2014 Apr 22.

    Detection of Colorectal Adenoma by Narrow Band Imaging (HQ190) vs. High-Definition White Light Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    • Leung WK
    • Lo OS
    • Liu KS
    • Tong T
    • But DY
    • Lam FY
    • Hsu AS
    • Wong SY
    • Seto WK
    • Hung IF
    • Law WL
    View abstract
  • *22.)

    Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jul;30(7):947-54. doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2230-x. Epub 2015 Apr 30.

    Next-Generation Narrow Band Imaging System for Colonic Polyp Detection: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial

    • Horimatsu T
    • Sano Y
    • Tanaka S
    • Kawamura T
    • Saito S
    • Iwatate M
    • Oka S
    • Uno K
    • Yoshimura K
    • Ishikawa H
    • Muto M
    • Tajiri H
    View abstract
  • *23.)

    Gut. 2013 Dec;62(12):1704-13. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303965. Epub 2013 Jan 7.

    Narrow Band Imaging to Differentiate Neoplastic and Non-Neoplastic Colorectal Polyps in Real Time: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Operating Characteristics

    • McGill SK
    • Evangelou E
    • Ioannidis JP
    • Soetikno RM
    • Kaltenbach T
    View abstract
  • *24.)

    Lancet Oncol. 2013 Dec;14(13):1337-47. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70509-6. Epub 2013 Nov 13.

    Diagnostic Performance of Narrowed Spectrum Endoscopy, Autofluorescence Imaging, and Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Optical Diagnosis of Colonic Polyps: A Meta-Analysis

    • Wanders LK
    • East JE
    • Uitentuis SE
    • Leeflang MM
    • Dekker E
    View abstract
  • *25.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):502.e1-502.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022. Epub 2015 Jan 16.

    ASGE Technology Committee Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing the ASGE PIVI Thresholds for Adopting Real-Time Endoscopic Assessment of the Histology of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps

    • Abu Dayyeh BK
    • Thosani N
    • Konda V
    • Wallace MB
    • Rex DK
    • Chauhan SS
    • Hwang JH
    • Komanduri S
    • Manfredi M
    • Maple JT
    • Murad FM
    • Siddiqui UD
    • Banerjee S
    View abstract
  • *26.)

    Gut. 2015 Oct;64(10):1569-77. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307742. Epub 2014 Nov 11.

    Real-Time Optical Diagnosis for Diminutive Colorectal Polyps Using Narrow-Band Imaging: The VALID Randomised Clinical Trial

    • Kaltenbach T
    • Rastogi A
    • Rouse RV
    • McQuaid KR
    • Sato T
    • Bansal A
    • Kosek JC
    • Soetikno R
    View abstract
  • *27.)

    Endoscopy. 2014 May;46(5):435-49. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1365348. Epub 2014 Mar 17.

    Advanced Imaging for Detection and Differentiation of Colorectal Neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

    • Kamiński MF
    • Hassan C
    • Bisschops R
    • Pohl J
    • Pellisé M
    • Dekker E
    • Ignjatovic-Wilson A
    • Hoffman A
    • Longcroft-Wheaton G
    • Heresbach D
    • Dumonceau JM
    • East JE
    View abstract

Technologies

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

  • Improves visibility of blood vessels and mucosal structures
  • Facilitates observation of tumors typically aggregating blood vessels
  • Uses only wavelengths absorbed by hemoglobin for maximum contrast
  • Optical image technology available at the push of a button
Dual focus

Dual Focus

  • Two- stage optical technology for precise observation of mucosal surfaces
  • Easy to operate at the push of a button, no need to adjust focus
  • Advanced diagnosis packaged in a routine endoscope

IMAGINE...
an Endoscope
Acting Like a Compass

Is ScopeGuide navigation useful in the colon? Is it possible to maximize cecal intubation rates without prolonging procedural time? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on procedural efficiency and patient comfort.

Explore how ScopeGuide can improve navigation and ease colonoscope insertion.

Why is colon insertion difficult?

Cecal intubation rate is a quality indicator for colonoscopy. The literature suggests that a gastroentroenterologist should reach the cecum in at least 90% of the exams to ensure high quality clinical service.

Expertise in colonoscopy (e.g. cecal intubation rate > 90%) is usually reached after 200-250 examinations. (28) But aside from expertise, risk factors such as patient age, gender, BMI, previous surgery, or preparation quality may influence the success rate of cecal intubation. (28)

Colonic insertion may cause patient pain with the sigmoid colon being the predominant location causing pain during colonoscopy. (29)

How can Olympus technology help to improve colon insertion?

  • For a long time, ScopeGuide has been considered as a training tool for inexperienced endoscopists. In a RCT, trainees achieved a much higher cecal intubation rate and required less help from seniors compared with trainees who did colonoscopies with on-demand fluoroscopy. (30)

  • Not only trainees benefit from ScopeGuide: ScopeGuide increases the cecal intubation rate for both inexperienced and experienced gastroenterologists (31,32) and improves cecal intubation times and patient pain scores. (32)

  • The latest EVIS EXERA III colonoscopes may even increase this effect: CF-HQ190 and PCF-H190D with in-built ScopeGuide functionality are additionally equipped with Responsive Insertion Technology, reducing the cecal insertion time by approximately 20%. (33)

  • 28.) Ward et al. 2014; Gut 63(11):1746-54
  • 29.) Shah et al. 2002; Endoscopy 34(6):435-40
  • 30.) Holme et al. 2011; GastrointestEndosc. 73(6):1215-22
  • 31.) Chen et al. 2013; World J Gastroenterol. 19(41):7197-204
  • 32.) Mark-Christensen et al. 2014; Endoscopy 47(3):251-61
  • 33.) Cuesta et al. 2014; Scand J Gastroenterol. 49(3):355-61

Clinical studies

  • *28.)

    Gut. 2014 Nov;63(11):1746-54. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305973. Epub 2014 Jan 27.

    An Analysis of the Learning Curve to Achieve Competency at Colonoscopy Using the JETS Database

    • Ward ST
    • Mohammed MA
    • Walt R
    • Valori R
    • Ismail T
    • Dunckley P
    View abstract
  • *29.)

    Endoscopy. 2002 Jun;34(6):435-40.

    Patient Pain During Colonoscopy: An Analysis Using Real-Time Magnetic Endoscope Imaging

    • Shah SG
    • Brooker JC
    • Thapar C
    • Williams CB
    • Saunders BP
    View abstract
  • *30.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1215-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.054. Epub 2011 Apr 8.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging Versus Standard Colonoscopy in a Routine Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

    • Holme Ö
    • Höie O
    • Matre J
    • Stallemo A
    • Garborg K
    • Hasund A
    • Wiig H
    • Hoff G
    • Bretthauer M
    View abstract
  • *31.)

    World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov 7;19(41):7197-204. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i41.7197.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging Versus Standard Colonoscopy: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Chen Y
    • Duan YT
    • Xie Q
    • Qin XP
    • Chen B
    • Xia L
    • Zhou Y
    • Li NN
    • Wu XT
    View abstract
  • *32.)

    Endoscopy. 2015 Mar;47(3):251-61. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390767. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging as an Adjuvant to Elective Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Mark-Christensen A
    • Brandsborg S
    • Iversen LH
    View abstract
  • *33.)

    Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar;49(3):355-61. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2013.871576. Epub 2014 Jan 13.

    Does “Responsive Insertion Technology” Improve Practice of Colonoscopy? Results of a Randomized Study

    • Cuesta R
    • Sola-Vera J
    • Uceda F
    • García Sepulcre MF
    • Morillo E
    • Vázquez N.
    View abstract

Technologies

ScopeGuide

ScopeGuide

  • Shows an accurate 3D reconstruction of position and configuration of a colonoscope along with the endoscopic image
  • Makes navigation through the colon easier
  • Helps to identify loops and to remove them
  • Helpful for novice and experienced physicians
Dual focus

Responsive Insertion Technology

  • Proprietary Olympus technologies improving colonoscope maneuverability and handling
  • Improves response of the scope during torque and push maneuvers
  • Avoids the candy-stick phenomenon when passing flexures
  • Facilitates better straightening of the scope

IMAGINE...
a Gentle Endoscope

Is it possible to increase patient acceptance of colonoscopy? Can Olympus technologies help overcome the challenges inherent in the procedure? Find out how they can improve patient satisfaction during and after colonoscopy.

Explore how Responsive Insertion Technology and ScopeGuide can improve patient satisfaction during and after colonoscopy.

What is limiting patient acceptance of colonoscopy?

Although colonoscopy is an effective screening method proven to reduce CRC prevalence and mortality (39), patient acceptance is limited.

This may be due to psychological reasons like being ashamed or being afraid of the result. On the other hand, procedural issues play a big role.

In the course of bowel preparation, high volumes of dehydrating fluid may cause nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain. During the procedure, pain may be caused by scope loops (29) or too much inflation. Even after the procedure, patients may suffer from pain caused by air in the bowel. (45)

How can Olympus technology help to improve patient satisfaction and acceptance?

Olympus colonoscopes have been proven to reduce pain and sedation needs.

  • ScopeGuide and Variable Stiffness were proven to be able to significantly reduce patient pain scores. (32,37)

  • Using the ultra-thin pediatric colonoscope with Passive Bending and High Force Transmission, it was shown that 78% of patients experienced no pain during colonoscopy. (38,46)

  • A combination of colonoscopes featuring Responsive Insertion Technology and ScopeGuide facilitates patient comfort and may contribute to a higher satisfaction and acceptance.

  • 29.) Shah et al. 2002; Endoscopy 34(6):435-40
  • 32.) Mark-Christensen et al. 2014; Endoscopy 47(3):251-61
  • 37.) Othman et al. 2009; Endoscopy; 41(1):17-24
  • 38.) Töx et al. 2013; Endoscopy; 45(6):439-44
  • 39.) Nishihara et al. 2013; N Engl J Med. 369(12):1095-105
  • 45.) Sajid et al. 2015; Colorectal Dis. 17(2):111-23
  • 46.) Garborg et al. 2012; Endoscopy; 44(8):740-6.

Clinical studies

  • *29.)

    Endoscopy. 2002 Jun;34(6):435-40.

    Patient Pain During Colonoscopy: An Analysis Using Real-Time Magnetic Endoscope Imaging

    • Shah SG
    • Brooker JC
    • Thapar C
    • Williams CB
    • Saunders BP
    View abstract
  • *32.)

    Endoscopy. 2015 Mar;47(3):251-61. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390767. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging as an Adjuvant to Elective Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Mark-Christensen A
    • Brandsborg S
    • Iversen LH
    View abstract
  • *37.)

    Endoscopy. 2009 Jan;41(1):17-24. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1103488. Epub 2009 Jan 21.

    Variable Stiffness Colonoscope Versus Regular Adult Colonoscope: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Othman MO
    • Bradley AG
    • Choudhary A
    • Hoffman RM
    • Roy PK
    View abstract
  • *38.)

    Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):439-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326270. Epub 2013 Mar 6.

    [...] Sedation for Colonoscopy with a New Ultrathin or a Standard Endoscope: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

    • Töx U
    • Schumacher B
    • Toermer T
    • Terheggen G
    • Mertens J
    • Holzapfel B
    • Lehmacher W
    • Goeser T
    • Neuhaus H
    View abstract
  • *39.)

    N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969

    Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Lower Endoscopy

    • Nishihara R
    • Wu K
    • Lochhead P
    • Morikawa T
    • Liao X
    • Qian ZR
    • Inamura K
    • Kim SA
    • Kuchiba A
    • Yamauchi M
    • Imamura Y
    • Willett WC
    • Rosner BA
    • Fuchs CS
    • Giovannucci E
    • Ogino S
    • Chan AT
    View abstract
  • *45.)

    Colorectal Dis. 2015 Feb;17(2):111-23. doi: 10.1111/codi.12837.

    Carbon Dioxide Insufflation Versus Conventional Air Insufflation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Sajid MS
    • Caswell J
    • Bhatti MI
    • Sains P
    • Baig MK
    • Miles WF
    View abstract
  • *46.)

    Endoscopy. 2012 Aug;44(8):740-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1309755. Epub 2012 May 23.

    Reduced Pain During Screening Colonoscopy with an Ultrathin Colonoscope: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    • Garborg KK
    • Løberg M
    • Matre J
    • Holme O
    • Kalager M
    • Hoff G
    • Bretthauer M
    View abstract

Technologies

ScopeGuide

ScopeGuide

  • Shows an accurate 3D reconstruction of position and configuration of a colonoscope along with the endoscopic image
  • Makes navigation through the colon easier
  • Helps to identify loops and to remove them
  • Helpful for novice and experienced physicians
Dual focus

Responsive Insertion Technology

  • Proprietary Olympus technologies improving colonoscope maneuverability and handling
  • Improves response of the scope during torque and push maneuvers
  • Avoids the candy-stick phenomenon when passing flexures
  • Facilitates better straightening of the scope
PCF-PH190

PCF-PH190

  • Extra-slim pediatric colonoscope, suitable for difficult anatomy
  • High Force Transmission and Passive Bending for easier insertion

IMAGINE...
an Accountant Would
Engineer an Endoscope

Is it possible to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes at the same time? How can Olympus technologies play a role? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on costs and time efficiency in your endoscopy unit.

Explore how Olympus technology can maximize procedural quality and save money at the same time.

Why is colonoscopy under pressure to increase cost efficiency?

Colonoscopy is a clinically, as well as economically, effective modality for prevention of colorectal cancer. (39,40) However, an increasing number of patients, as well as an increasing number of lesions (41) also increase the need for time- and cost-effective procedures.

In the esophagus, Barrett’s Esophagus is a major indication with increasing prevalence (42) and significant costs for surveillance. (43)

Which procedural factors increase costs?

Apart from equipment costs, various factors influence cost efficiency (time required for the exam and patient recovery, staff required for the procedure, drugs being used, cost for histopathology or reprocessing).

Quality needs to be ensured as often confirmed by local audits.

How can Olympus technology contribute to better cost efficiency while improving quality?

Delivering a high-quality examination should not be compromised by cost considerations. However, with rising numbers of procedures cost efficiency becomes a pressing issue.

Olympus endoscopes have also been proven to enable time and cost savings.

  • Cecal insertion time can be reduced by 20% by using colonoscopes featuring Responsive Insertion Technology. They may help to gain time for additional examinations or detailed observation. (33)

  • By using ScopeGuide and colonoscopes with Responsive Insertion Technology, amounts and costs for sedative drugs can be reduced, contributing to quicker patient recovery. (32,38)

  • Costs for biopsies and histopathology may be reduced by applying an optical diagnosis (25) and targeted biopsies (10) in daily practice.

  • Dual Focus may play an important role in optical diagnosis as it raises the ratio of high-confidence decisions – an important aspect to maximize the economic benefits of these strategies. (26,44)

  • 10.) Sharma et al. 2013; Gut 62 (1):15-21.
  • 25.) ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. 2015; GastrointestEndosc. 81(3):502.e1-502.e16
  • 26.) Kaltenbach et al. 2014; Gut 64(10):1569-77
  • 32.) Mark-Christensen et al. 2014; Endoscopy 47(3):251-61
  • 33.) Cuesta et al. 2014; Scand J Gastroenterol. 49(3):355-61
  • 38.) Töx et al. 2013; Endoscopy; 45(6):439-44
  • 39.) Nishihara et al. 2013; N Engl J Med. 369(12):1095-105.
  • 40.) Wong et al. 2015; Sci Rep.; 5:13568.
  • 41.) Brenner et al. 2015; Gastroenterology; 149(2):356-66.e1.
  • 42.) Fock et al. 2011; Expert Rev GastroenterolHep. 5(1):123-30.
  • 43.) Inadomi et al. 2015; Best Prac Res ClinGastroenterol. 29(1):51-63
  • 44.) Singh et al. 2013; Dig Endosc.25 Suppl 2:151-6

Clinical studies

  • *10.)

    Gut. 2013 Jan;62(1):15-21. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300962. Epub 2012 Feb 7.

    Standard Endoscopy with Random Biopsies Versus Narrow Band Imaging Targeted Biopsies in Barrett‘s Oesophagus: A Prospective, International, Randomised Controlled Trial

    • Sharma P
    • Hawes RH
    • Bansal A
    • Gupta N
    • Curvers W
    • Rastogi A
    • Singh M
    • Hall M
    • Mathur SC
    • Wani SB
    • Hoffman B
    • Gaddam S
    • Fockens P
    • Bergman JJ
    View abstract
  • *25.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):502.e1-502.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022. Epub 2015 Jan 16.

    ASGE Technology Committee Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing the ASGE PIVI Thresholds for Adopting Real-Time Endoscopic Assessment of the Histology of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps

    • Abu Dayyeh BK
    • Thosani N
    • Konda V
    • Wallace MB
    • Rex DK
    • Chauhan SS
    • Hwang JH
    • Komanduri S
    • Manfredi M
    • Maple JT
    • Murad FM
    • Siddiqui UD
    • Banerjee S
    View abstract
  • *26.)

    Gut. 2015 Oct;64(10):1569-77. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307742. Epub 2014 Nov 11.

    Real-Time Optical Diagnosis for Diminutive Colorectal Polyps Using Narrow-Band Imaging: The VALID Randomised Clinical Trial

    • Kaltenbach T
    • Rastogi A
    • Rouse RV
    • McQuaid KR
    • Sato T
    • Bansal A
    • Kosek JC
    • Soetikno R
    View abstract
  • *32.)

    Endoscopy. 2015 Mar;47(3):251-61. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390767. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging as an Adjuvant to Elective Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Mark-Christensen A
    • Brandsborg S
    • Iversen LH
    View abstract
  • *33.)

    Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014 Mar;49(3):355-61. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2013.871576. Epub 2014 Jan 13.

    Does “Responsive Insertion Technology” Improve Practice of Colonoscopy? Results of a Randomized Study

    • Cuesta R
    • Sola-Vera J
    • Uceda F
    • García Sepulcre MF
    • Morillo E
    • Vázquez N.
    View abstract
  • *38.)

    Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):439-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326270. Epub 2013 Mar 6.

    [...] Sedation for Colonoscopy with a New Ultrathin or a Standard Endoscope: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

    • Töx U
    • Schumacher B
    • Toermer T
    • Terheggen G
    • Mertens J
    • Holzapfel B
    • Lehmacher W
    • Goeser T
    • Neuhaus H
    View abstract
  • *39.)

    N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969

    Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality after Lower Endoscopy

    • Nishihara R
    • Wu K
    • Lochhead P
    • Morikawa T
    • Liao X
    • Qian ZR
    • Inamura K
    • Kim SA
    • Kuchiba A
    • Yamauchi M
    • Imamura Y
    • Willett WC
    • Rosner BA
    • Fuchs CS
    • Giovannucci E
    • Ogino S
    • Chan AT
    View abstract
  • *40.)

    Sci Rep. 2015 Sep 4;5:13568. doi: 10.1038/srep13568.

    The Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Faecal Immunochemical Test Versus Colonoscopy

    • Wong MC
    • Ching JY
    • Chan VC
    • Sung JJ
    View abstract
  • *41.)

    Gastroenterology. 2015 Aug;149(2):356-66.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.012. Epub 2015 Apr 22.

    Trends in Adenoma Detection Rates During the First 10 Years of the German Screening Colonoscopy Program

    • Brenner H
    • Altenhofen L
    • Kretschmann J
    • Rösch T
    • Pox C
    • Stock C
    • Hoffmeister M
    View abstract
  • *42.)

    Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Feb;5(1):123-30. doi: 10.1586/egh.10.82.

    Global Epidemiology of Barrett‘s Esophagus

    • Fock KM
    • Ang TL
    View abstract
  • *43.)

    Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Feb;29(1):51-63. doi: 10.1016/j. bpg.2014.12.002. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

    Cost Considerations in Implementing a Screening and Surveillance Strategy for Barrett‘s Oesophagus

    • Inadomi JM
    View abstract
  • *44.)

    Dig Endosc. 2013 May;25 Suppl 2:151-6. doi: 10.1111/den.12106.

    Preliminary Feasibility Study Using a Novel Narrow-Band Imaging System with Dual Focus Magnification Capability in Barrett‘s Esophagus: Is the Time Ripe to Abandon Random Biopsies?

    • Singh R
    • Shahzad MA
    • Tam W
    • Goda K
    • Yu LH
    • Fujishiro M
    • Uedo N
    • Ruszkiewicz A
    View abstract

Technologies

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

Narrow Band Imaging (NBI)

  • Improves visibility of blood vessels and mucosal structures
  • Facilitates observation of tumors typically aggregating blood vessels
  • Uses only wavelengths absorbed by hemoglobin for maximum contrast
  • Optical image technology available at the push of a button
Dual focus

Dual Focus

  • Two- stage optical technology for precise observation of mucosal surfaces
  • Easy to operate at the push of a button, no need to adjust focus
  • Advanced diagnosis packaged in a routine endoscope
ScopeGuide

ScopeGuide

  • Shows an accurate 3D reconstruction of position and configuration of a colonoscope along with the endoscopic image
  • Makes navigation through the colon easier
  • Helps to identify loops and to remove them
  • Helpful for novice and experienced physicians
Dual focus

Responsive Insertion Technology

  • Proprietary Olympus technologies improving colonoscope maneuverability and handling
  • Improves response of the scope during torque and push maneuvers
  • Avoids the candy-stick phenomenon when passing flexures
  • Facilitates better straightening of the scope
PCF-PH190

PCF-PH190

  • Extra-slim pediatric colonoscope, suitable for difficult anatomy
  • High Force Transmission and Passive Bending for easier insertion

IMAGINE...
an Endoscope Would
Have an Analgesic Effect

Is it possible to reduce analgesia and sedation needs during colonoscopy? Can Olympus technologies improve patient comfort without compromising efficiency? Find out what numerous studies have shown. And imagine the impact on patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

Explore how Responsive Insertion Technology and ScopeGuide can improve colonoscope insertion and reduce the need for sedation.

Why are patients sedated during colonoscopy?

Many patients request sedation because of anxiety and concerns about the procedure. Pain during insertion may occur if the anatomy is difficult and loops become likely to occur. (29)

Sedation is used routinely in various countries, especially if guidelines allow the application by nurses. Studies show that sedation may increase patient satisfaction. (34)

What issues exist with sedation?

Sedation in colonoscopy is, in general, safe. Usual side effects reported are nausea, headache, and hypoxemia. (34)

However, sedation also represents significant cost and prohibits a direct communication with the patient, making it difficult to perform patient position changes to optimize cecal intubation and adenoma detection rate. (36)

How can Olympus technology help to decrease sedation without compromising patient comfort?

Olympus technologies have been evaluated in clinical studies on their ability to relieve patient pain during colonoscopy.

  • ScopeGuide and Variable Stiffness were proven to be able to reduce sedation levels and patient pain scores. (32,37)

  • Using the ultra-thin pediatric colonoscope with Passive Bending and High Force Transmission, sedation levels were shown to be significantly lower compared to standard colonoscopes. (38)

  • Combined use of colonoscopes with Responsive Insertion Technology and ScopeGuide may help to decrease the use of sedative drugs while improving patient comfort.

  • 29.) Shah et al. 2002; Endoscopy 34(6):435-40
  • 32.) Mark-Christensen et al. 2014; Endoscopy 47(3):251-61
  • 34.) Khajavi et al. 2013; Anesth Pain Med. 3(1):208-13
  • 35.) Sieg et al. 2014; J Gastroenterol Hep. 29(3):517-23
  • 36.) Ball et al. 2015; GastrointestEndosc.82(3):488-94
  • 37.) Othman et al. 2009; Endoscopy; 41(1):17-24
  • 38.) Töx et al. 2013; Endoscopy; 45(6):439-44

Clinical studies

  • *29.)

    Endoscopy. 2002 Jun;34(6):435-40.

    Patient Pain During Colonoscopy: An Analysis Using Real-Time Magnetic Endoscope Imaging

    • Shah SG
    • Brooker JC
    • Thapar C
    • Williams CB
    • Saunders BP
    View abstract
  • *32.)

    Endoscopy. 2015 Mar;47(3):251-61. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390767. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

    Magnetic Endoscopic Imaging as an Adjuvant to Elective Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Mark-Christensen A
    • Brandsborg S
    • Iversen LH
    View abstract
  • *34.)

    Anesth Pain Med. 2013 Summer;3(1):208-13. doi: 10.5812/aapm.9653. Epub 2013 Jul 1.

    Conscious Sedation and Analgesia in Colonoscopy [...]

    • Khajavi M
    • Emami A
    • Etezadi F
    • Safari S
    • Sharifi A
    • Shariat Moharari R
    View abstract
  • *35.)

    J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Mar;29(3):517-23.

    Safety Analysis of Endoscopist-Directed [...]

    • Sieg A
    • Beck S
    • Scholl SG
    • Heil FJ
    • Gotthardt DN
    • Stremmel W
    • Rex DK
    • Friedrich K
    View abstract
  • *36.)

    Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):488-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.035. Epub 2015 Apr 22.

    Position Change During Colonoscope Withdrawal Increases Polyp and Adenoma Detection in the Right but not in the Left Side of the Colon: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

    • Ball AJ
    • Johal SS
    • Riley SA
    View abstract
  • *37.)

    Endoscopy. 2009 Jan;41(1):17-24. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1103488. Epub 2009 Jan 21.

    Variable Stiffness Colonoscope Versus Regular Adult Colonoscope: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

    • Othman MO
    • Bradley AG
    • Choudhary A
    • Hoffman RM
    • Roy PK
    View abstract
  • *38.)

    Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):439-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326270. Epub 2013 Mar 6.

    [...] Sedation for Colonoscopy with a New Ultrathin or a Standard Endoscope: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

    • Töx U
    • Schumacher B
    • Toermer T
    • Terheggen G
    • Mertens J
    • Holzapfel B
    • Lehmacher W
    • Goeser T
    • Neuhaus H
    View abstract

Technologies

ScopeGuide

ScopeGuide

  • Shows an accurate 3D reconstruction of position and configuration of a colonoscope along with the endoscopic image
  • Makes navigation through the colon easier
  • Helps to identify loops and to remove them
  • Helpful for novice and experienced physicians
Dual focus

Responsive Insertion Technology

  • Proprietary Olympus technologies improving colonoscope maneuverability and handling
  • Improves response of the scope during torque and push maneuvers
  • Avoids the candy-stick phenomenon when passing flexures
  • Facilitates better straightening of the scope
PCF-PH190

PCF-PH190

  • Extra-slim pediatric colonoscope, suitable for difficult anatomy
  • High Force Transmission and Passive Bending for easier insertion

Videos

Learn about our innovative products for endoscopy and colonoscopy in the following videos and hear what the experts say.

Training

Olympus is committed to providing the most advanced technologies for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment, helping you to advance patient care. As a part of this commitment, we are pleased to provide a range of training courses – at locations throughout Europe as well as online at www.nbi-training.eu.

You can find a selection of our forthcoming training courses below:

No results found!