Skip to main content
2026 ASCRS Annual Scientific Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
CME
CME
Invitation/Ticketed Event
Invitation/Ticketed Event
Invited Lectureship
Invited Lectureship
Award Recipient
Award Recipient
Live Streamed Session
Live Streamed Session
Nurses Contact Hours
Nurses Contact Hours
Self-Assessment
Self-Assessment
Live Q&A and Polling
Live Q&A and Polling
Social
Social
Industry
Industry

Session:: ePosters-Sun130-M4: Other Neoplasia and Endoscopy

EP483 - Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Disposable Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes

Sunday, May 10, 2026
1:51 PM - 1:56 PM ET

    ePoster Presenter(s)

  • Saleh Busbait

    Colorectal Surgery Fellow
    Henry Ford Providence Hospital
    Southfield, MI, United States

    All of the relevant financial relationships listed below have been mitigated.
    This individual has no financial relationships with ineligible companies.

    • Author(s)

  • BA

    Badour Alzahrani, n/a

    senior registrar
    Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University
    rochester hills, Michigan, United States

    Disclosure information not submitted.

  • Koby Herman, MD

    Fellow
    Henry Ford Providence Hospital
    Henry Ford Providence Hospital
    Ferndale, MI, United States

    Disclosure information not submitted.

    • Senior Author(s)

  • Jasneet S. Bhullar, MD, MS, FACS, FASCRS.

    Clinical Associate Professor of Surgery MSU/CHM, Program Director Colorectal Surgery Fellowship MSU
    Henry Ford Health
    Henry Ford- MSU Colorectal Surgery Fellowship, MI
    Rochester Hills, Michigan, United States

    All of the relevant financial relationships listed below have been mitigated.
    This individual has no relevant relationships with ineligible companies.

    • Author(s)

  • Surya Nalamati, Md, FACS,FASCRS

    Program Director
    Henry Ford Hospital
    Novi, Michigan, United States

    Disclosure information not submitted.

  • ED

    Ernesto R. Drelichman, MD

    President Elect Medical Staff
    Henry Ford Health
    rochester hills, Michigan, United States

    Disclosure information not submitted.

All of the relevant financial relationships listed below have been mitigated.
Saleh Busbait: This individual has no financial relationships with ineligible companies.
jasneet S. Bhullar, MD, MS, FACS, FASCRS.: This individual has no relevant relationships with ineligible companies.
Purpose/Background: This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness, safety, and technical performance of disposable (single-use) versus reusable gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes across various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Methods/Interventions: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 2015 to June 2025. Eligible studies included full-text, English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective comparative studies, and case-control studies Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Primary outcomes included technical success, image quality, procedure time, safety, and user satisfaction.

Results/Outcomes: Seven studies comprising 686 patients were included: five RCTs, one case-control study, and one prospective comparative trial. Technical success rates were generally high and comparable between disposable and reusable endoscopes. However, disposables were associated with longer procedure durations in five of six studies (p < 0.001), lower image quality scores (p < 0.001), and inferior performance in flexibility, maneuverability, and auxiliary functions such as suction and angulation. Specifically, two randomized controlled trials evaluating colonoscopy procedures highlighted relevant findings: Wang et al. (2025) demonstrated a 100% colonoscopy completion rate using disposable colonoscopes, but reported significantly longer procedure durations (15.5 vs. 10.2 min, p< 0.001), reduced image quality, and inferior flexibility compared to reusable colonoscopes. Similarly, Xu et al. (2024), who examined disposable colonoscopes for retroflexed endoscopic rubber band ligation, reported comparable therapeutic efficacy and safety profiles, although image clarity and device flexibility were mildly inferior to those of reusable endoscopes. Despite these technical limitations, safety profiles and adverse event rates were similar. Patient and operator satisfaction also did not differ significantly. Most studies supported non-inferiority of disposable devices.

Conclusion/Discussion: Disposable GI endoscopes are a clinically viable alternative to reusable devices for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, offering comparable safety and procedural success. However, current models still lag in image quality and technical performance. Continued innovation and larger comparative studies are needed to validate their widespread adoption and assess cost-effectiveness across clinical settings.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Disposable Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: Summary of Clinical Studies