Endosonography
Conditions
Keywords
echoendoscope, endoscopic ultrasonography
Brief summary
The primary objective for this study is to compare the safety and validity of two endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) systems (GF-UE260-ME2 and EG-UR5-S50) used for clinical performance and establish a relative EUS performance assessment system and clinical case data to provide support for the product performance improvement.
Detailed description
This research is a random, opening and parallel-controlled clinical test. Tested device model: The EG-UR5 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by SonoSscope Medical Crop. That used with the HD-500 image processor, HDL-500X light source and S50Exp ultrasonic color doppler instrument . Compared device model: The GF-UE260-ME2 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by Olympus and its compatible light source, image processor and ultrasonic instrument. To scientifically compare the clinical performances of the test model and the compared model, the enrolled objects would be randomly distributed to the tested group and the compared group to conducted the examination with the tested model and the compared model respectively. EUS will be performed in the standard fashion by one of the experienced endosonographers in the unit. Once the EUS is complete, the procedure will be stopped and the echoendoscope withdrawn from the patient. 1. Check Points Providing optical images of the human upper gastrointesinal tract (including esophagus, stomach and duodenum) for observing, diagnosis and treatment, and for the ultrasonic check and diagnosis for the upper gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. 2. Test Items 1. Ultrasonic and endoscopic image quality assessment 2. Device controllability assessment 3. System safety assessment 4. System stability assessment The data are recorded in the CRF, including patient information, clinical assessment for the usage of the endoscope and device operation, thus to perform a comprehensive assessment whether the safety and validity of this product can meet the clinical requirements.
Interventions
OTHERAssessment of the safety and validity of echoendoscope
1. Ultrasonic and endoscopic image quality assessment 2. Device controllability assessment 3. System safety assessment 4. System stability assessment
Sponsors
Peking Union Medical College Hospital
Study design
Observational model
CASE_ONLY
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. The patients with clinical indication for the endoscopic ultrasonography examination or diagnosis; 2. Patients volunteering to participate in this study and sign the informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients do not sign the informed consent. 2. Mental disorders and non-cooperated patient 3. Severe cardiopulmonary diseases (such as severe cardiac dysfunction, severe pulmonary dysfunction and severe arrhythmia) 4. Shock or other severe patient 5. Suspected or confirmed upper digestive tract perforation or perforation acute phase 6. Acute phase of gastric and esophageal chemical burns 7. Patients do not suitable to participate in this study.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasonic Image Quality Assessment | up to 2 months | Check Points for Ultrasonic Image Esophagus, stomach, cholecyst, bile duct, pancreas and portal vein system Ultrasonic image quality Assessment standards Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all organs are excellent, the ultrasonic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one assessments are good, the ultrasonic image quality is good. If one or more than one assessments are bad, the ultrasonic image quality is bad. The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%. |
| Endoscopic Image Quality Assessment | up to 2 months | Check Points for endoscopic Image Esophagus, proximal stomach, stomach body,gastric angle,antrum and duodenal bulb. Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all observed points are excellent, the endoscopic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one observation points are good, the endoscopic image quality is good. If one or more than one observation points are bad, the endoscopic image quality is bad. The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Device controllability Assessment | up to 2 months | The good ration of the device controllability is computed to assess the performance of the ultrasonic endoscope and the target value is more than 98%. |
| System safety assessment | up to 2 months | Judge the device safety according to the system safety adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is 0. |
| System stability assessment | up to 2 months | Judge the device stability according to the system stability adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is less than 5%. |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed