The Experts below are selected from a list of 903 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Robert H. Hawes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a prospective blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin stand alone battery powered Esophagoscope
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE). Methods In phase I, 10 healthy volunteers underwent both peroral and transnasal esophagoscopy with BPE to evaluate the technical feasibility of the examination. For phases II and III, patients were recruited to have BPE before SVE. In phase II, both procedures were performed with conscious sedation. In phase III, the BPE was performed with only topical anesthesia. Two endoscopists assessed the technical performance of the endoscope and patient tolerance and recorded the esophageal findings independently. Results In phase I, all endoscopists reported adequate visualization of the esophagus in the 10 volunteers. A total of 181 patients were evaluated in phases II and III (89 in phase II, 92 in phase III). The sensitivity for detecting columnar lined esophagus was 94% in phase II and 95% in phase III. The sensitivity for all esophageal findings was 87% and 86% in phases II and III, respectively. The technical performance of the endoscope was significantly worse for BPE compared with the SVE. The patient tolerance as evaluated by the endoscopist was similar for both procedures. Ninety-five percent of the patients undergoing unsedated BPE were willing to have the procedure repeated under similar circumstances. Conclusions Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 3.1-mm, battery-powered, stand-alone Esophagoscope is feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in detecting esophageal pathologies. It might be an efficient and cost-effective screening tool for the detection of columnar lined esophagus.

  • prospective evaluation of a 3 1 mm battery powered Esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Ravi Madhotra, Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Robert H. Hawes, Ira Willner, Adrian Reuben
    Abstract:

    Prospective Evaluation of a 3.1-mm Battery-Powered Esophagoscope in Screening for Esophageal Varices in Cirrhotic Patients

  • original contributionprospective evaluation of a 3 1 mm battery powered Esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Ravi Madhotra, Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Robert H. Hawes, Ira Willner, Adrian Reuben
    Abstract:

    Objective Standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is costly and uses conscious sedation that cirrhotic patients may tolerate poorly. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptance of unsedated esophagoscopy with an ultrathin battery-powered endoscope (BPE) in cirrhotic patients for diagnosing esophageal varices (EV).

  • Original contributionA prospective, blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin, stand-alone, battery-powered Esophagoscope
    The American journal of gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE).

  • 7127 Can a 3.1 mm stand-alone battery powered Esophagoscope (bpe) screen the esophagus for esophagitis and barrett's ? a prospective blinded comparison with a standard videoendoscope (sve).
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2000
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Yuko Y Palesch, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Intro: There exist several indications (varices, Barrett's, GERD) where an esophagoscopy alone would suffice rather than a complete endoscopy. Feasibility of esophagoscopy using a prototype battery powered flexible fiberoptic Esophagoscope (Olympus XEF-DP) with an outer diameter of 3.1 mm has been reported (GI Endo 1999;49: AB157). Aim: In a prospective blinded study, compare esophageal visualization between the BPE & the SVE. Methods: 95 consecutive pts. underwent sedated esophagoscopy with the BPE foll. by SVE, done by 2 endoscopists, each blinded to the findings of the other. On a visual analogue scale, the 2 endoscopists rated pt. tolerance & instrument performance. Results: 89 (M 57) pts. (mean age 56 yr.) were analyzed. Mean duration of esophagoscopy was 4.4 mins (range 2-10). Sensitivity : specificity (%) with BPE was 94 : 96 (Barrett's) & 87 : 94 (all lesions). Measures of pt. tolerance were (BPE : SVE, p value): intubation ease 96 : 93, 0.06; gagging 98 : 91, 0.0012; coughing 98 : 96, 0.08; belching 89 : 92, 0.02 (higher scores indicate better rating). Measures of scope performance were (BPE : SEV, p value): visibility 90 : 98, 0.0001; air insufflation 92 : 98, 0.001; maneuverability 87 : 99, 0.001. Concl: The esophagus can be accurately visualized in under 5 min with the BPE. Inter-observer variability may account for some of the disagreements. Being a standalone instrument, not needing a light source, processor or a monitor, it could facilitate esophagoscopy outside of the conventional GI lab setting. Its tolerance unsedated, use transnasally & potential in a true screening environment are being studied.

Mahesh S. Mokhashi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a prospective blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin stand alone battery powered Esophagoscope
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE). Methods In phase I, 10 healthy volunteers underwent both peroral and transnasal esophagoscopy with BPE to evaluate the technical feasibility of the examination. For phases II and III, patients were recruited to have BPE before SVE. In phase II, both procedures were performed with conscious sedation. In phase III, the BPE was performed with only topical anesthesia. Two endoscopists assessed the technical performance of the endoscope and patient tolerance and recorded the esophageal findings independently. Results In phase I, all endoscopists reported adequate visualization of the esophagus in the 10 volunteers. A total of 181 patients were evaluated in phases II and III (89 in phase II, 92 in phase III). The sensitivity for detecting columnar lined esophagus was 94% in phase II and 95% in phase III. The sensitivity for all esophageal findings was 87% and 86% in phases II and III, respectively. The technical performance of the endoscope was significantly worse for BPE compared with the SVE. The patient tolerance as evaluated by the endoscopist was similar for both procedures. Ninety-five percent of the patients undergoing unsedated BPE were willing to have the procedure repeated under similar circumstances. Conclusions Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 3.1-mm, battery-powered, stand-alone Esophagoscope is feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in detecting esophageal pathologies. It might be an efficient and cost-effective screening tool for the detection of columnar lined esophagus.

  • prospective evaluation of a 3 1 mm battery powered Esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Ravi Madhotra, Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Robert H. Hawes, Ira Willner, Adrian Reuben
    Abstract:

    Prospective Evaluation of a 3.1-mm Battery-Powered Esophagoscope in Screening for Esophageal Varices in Cirrhotic Patients

  • original contributionprospective evaluation of a 3 1 mm battery powered Esophagoscope in screening for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Ravi Madhotra, Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Robert H. Hawes, Ira Willner, Adrian Reuben
    Abstract:

    Objective Standard esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is costly and uses conscious sedation that cirrhotic patients may tolerate poorly. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptance of unsedated esophagoscopy with an ultrathin battery-powered endoscope (BPE) in cirrhotic patients for diagnosing esophageal varices (EV).

  • Original contributionA prospective, blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin, stand-alone, battery-powered Esophagoscope
    The American journal of gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE).

  • 7127 Can a 3.1 mm stand-alone battery powered Esophagoscope (bpe) screen the esophagus for esophagitis and barrett's ? a prospective blinded comparison with a standard videoendoscope (sve).
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2000
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Yuko Y Palesch, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Intro: There exist several indications (varices, Barrett's, GERD) where an esophagoscopy alone would suffice rather than a complete endoscopy. Feasibility of esophagoscopy using a prototype battery powered flexible fiberoptic Esophagoscope (Olympus XEF-DP) with an outer diameter of 3.1 mm has been reported (GI Endo 1999;49: AB157). Aim: In a prospective blinded study, compare esophageal visualization between the BPE & the SVE. Methods: 95 consecutive pts. underwent sedated esophagoscopy with the BPE foll. by SVE, done by 2 endoscopists, each blinded to the findings of the other. On a visual analogue scale, the 2 endoscopists rated pt. tolerance & instrument performance. Results: 89 (M 57) pts. (mean age 56 yr.) were analyzed. Mean duration of esophagoscopy was 4.4 mins (range 2-10). Sensitivity : specificity (%) with BPE was 94 : 96 (Barrett's) & 87 : 94 (all lesions). Measures of pt. tolerance were (BPE : SVE, p value): intubation ease 96 : 93, 0.06; gagging 98 : 91, 0.0012; coughing 98 : 96, 0.08; belching 89 : 92, 0.02 (higher scores indicate better rating). Measures of scope performance were (BPE : SEV, p value): visibility 90 : 98, 0.0001; air insufflation 92 : 98, 0.001; maneuverability 87 : 99, 0.001. Concl: The esophagus can be accurately visualized in under 5 min with the BPE. Inter-observer variability may account for some of the disagreements. Being a standalone instrument, not needing a light source, processor or a monitor, it could facilitate esophagoscopy outside of the conventional GI lab setting. Its tolerance unsedated, use transnasally & potential in a true screening environment are being studied.

Adrian Reuben - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Ravi Madhotra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Michael B. Wallace - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a prospective blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin stand alone battery powered Esophagoscope
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE). Methods In phase I, 10 healthy volunteers underwent both peroral and transnasal esophagoscopy with BPE to evaluate the technical feasibility of the examination. For phases II and III, patients were recruited to have BPE before SVE. In phase II, both procedures were performed with conscious sedation. In phase III, the BPE was performed with only topical anesthesia. Two endoscopists assessed the technical performance of the endoscope and patient tolerance and recorded the esophageal findings independently. Results In phase I, all endoscopists reported adequate visualization of the esophagus in the 10 volunteers. A total of 181 patients were evaluated in phases II and III (89 in phase II, 92 in phase III). The sensitivity for detecting columnar lined esophagus was 94% in phase II and 95% in phase III. The sensitivity for all esophageal findings was 87% and 86% in phases II and III, respectively. The technical performance of the endoscope was significantly worse for BPE compared with the SVE. The patient tolerance as evaluated by the endoscopist was similar for both procedures. Ninety-five percent of the patients undergoing unsedated BPE were willing to have the procedure repeated under similar circumstances. Conclusions Unsedated esophagoscopy with a 3.1-mm, battery-powered, stand-alone Esophagoscope is feasible, well tolerated, and accurate in detecting esophageal pathologies. It might be an efficient and cost-effective screening tool for the detection of columnar lined esophagus.

  • Original contributionA prospective, blinded study of diagnostic esophagoscopy with a superthin, stand-alone, battery-powered Esophagoscope
    The American journal of gastroenterology, 2003
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Stephan M. Wildi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Bora Gumustop, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Objectives A more widely available, well-tolerated, and cost-effective technique is needed to screen a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. An ideal solution might be to perform unsedated esophagoscopy with an entirely self-contained, small-caliber endoscope. In a prospective, blinded study in three phases, we compared the feasibility, patient tolerance, and diagnostic accuracy of esophagoscopy performed with a prototype, superthin, battery-powered Esophagoscope (BPE) with standard video esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SVE).

  • 7127 Can a 3.1 mm stand-alone battery powered Esophagoscope (bpe) screen the esophagus for esophagitis and barrett's ? a prospective blinded comparison with a standard videoendoscope (sve).
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2000
    Co-Authors: Mahesh S. Mokhashi, Tammy Glenn, Michael B. Wallace, Christian Jost, Christopher Y. Kim, Peter B. Cotton, Yuko Y Palesch, Robert H. Hawes
    Abstract:

    Intro: There exist several indications (varices, Barrett's, GERD) where an esophagoscopy alone would suffice rather than a complete endoscopy. Feasibility of esophagoscopy using a prototype battery powered flexible fiberoptic Esophagoscope (Olympus XEF-DP) with an outer diameter of 3.1 mm has been reported (GI Endo 1999;49: AB157). Aim: In a prospective blinded study, compare esophageal visualization between the BPE & the SVE. Methods: 95 consecutive pts. underwent sedated esophagoscopy with the BPE foll. by SVE, done by 2 endoscopists, each blinded to the findings of the other. On a visual analogue scale, the 2 endoscopists rated pt. tolerance & instrument performance. Results: 89 (M 57) pts. (mean age 56 yr.) were analyzed. Mean duration of esophagoscopy was 4.4 mins (range 2-10). Sensitivity : specificity (%) with BPE was 94 : 96 (Barrett's) & 87 : 94 (all lesions). Measures of pt. tolerance were (BPE : SVE, p value): intubation ease 96 : 93, 0.06; gagging 98 : 91, 0.0012; coughing 98 : 96, 0.08; belching 89 : 92, 0.02 (higher scores indicate better rating). Measures of scope performance were (BPE : SEV, p value): visibility 90 : 98, 0.0001; air insufflation 92 : 98, 0.001; maneuverability 87 : 99, 0.001. Concl: The esophagus can be accurately visualized in under 5 min with the BPE. Inter-observer variability may account for some of the disagreements. Being a standalone instrument, not needing a light source, processor or a monitor, it could facilitate esophagoscopy outside of the conventional GI lab setting. Its tolerance unsedated, use transnasally & potential in a true screening environment are being studied.