Virtual endoscopy using CT scan

Active Stabilization of Interventional Tasks Utilizing a Magnetically Manipulated Endoscope

Magnetically actuated robots have become increasingly popular in medical endoscopy over the past decade. Despite the significant improvements in autonomy and control methods, progress within the field of medical magnetic endoscopes has mainly been in the domain of enhanced navigation. Interventional tasks such as biopsy, polyp removal, and clip placement are a major procedural component of endoscopy. Little advancement has been done in this area due to the problem of adequately controlling and stabilizing magnetically actuated endoscopes for interventional tasks. In the present paper we discuss a novel model-based Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) control approach to provide stability during interventional maneuvers. This method linearizes the non-linear dynamic interaction between the external actuation system and the endoscope in a set of equilibria, associated to different distances between the magnetic source and the endoscope, and computes different controllers for each equilibrium. This approach provides the global stability of the overall system and robustness against external disturbances. The performance of the LPV approach is compared to an intelligent teleoperation control method (based on a Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller), on the Magnetic Flexible Endoscope (MFE) platform. Four biopsies in different regions of the colon and at two different system equilibria are performed. Both controllers are asked to stabilize the endoscope in the presence of external disturbances (i.e. the introduction of the biopsy forceps through the working channel of the endoscope). The experiments, performed in a benchtop colon simulator, show a maximum reduction of the mean orientation error of the endoscope of 45.8% with the LPV control compared to the PID controller.

Colonography by CT, MRI and PET/CT combined with conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and staging

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cancer killer worldwide. But the disease is both curable and preventable at an early stage. Regular CRC cancer screening has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from CRC. However, the importance of large-scale screening is only now starting to be appreciated. This article reviews a variety of imaging procedures available for detecting ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), polyps and CRC in their early stage and also presents details on various screening options. Detecting, staging and re-staging of patients with CRC also require multimodality, multistep imaging approaches. Staging and re-staging with conventional colonoscopy (CC), computer tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and positron emission tomography/computer tomography colonography (PET/CTC) are of paramount importance in determining the most appropriate therapeutic method and in predicting the risk of tumor recurrence and overall prognosis. The advantages and limitations of these modalities are also discussed.

A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient acceptance of computed tomography (CT) colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy by means of a self-assessed questionnaire.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four-hundred-and-one patients with valid address information from our patient collective were preselected. Patient acceptance was evaluated retrospectively using a self-assessed questionnaire. The patients underwent CT colonography in our institution using 4x or 16x multi-detector row (MDR) CT. Two-hundred-and-forty-six patients returned a completed questionnaire, 157 of these indicating that they had undergone both virtual and conventional colonoscopy.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-twenty (76.4%) of the 157 patients would undergo another CT colonography if necessary, while only 14 patients would not. One-hundred-and-sixteen (73.9%) patients favored the actual examination procedure of CT colonography (P<0.0001), while only 6.4% preferred the conventional method. Preparation prior to CT colonography was experienced as more convenient than preparation prior to conventional colonoscopy (52.2% versus 14%).

CONCLUSION

CT colonography was preferred in terms of both preparation and the actual procedure itself.