Abbonarsi

A comparative evaluation of single-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy for patients with mid-gut disorders - 24/08/11

Doi : 10.1016/j.gie.2010.04.043 
Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Anne Marie Lennon, MD, PhD, Kerry B. Dunbar, MD, Vikesh K. Singh, MD, MSc, Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Samuel Giday, MD, Marcia I. Canto, MD, MHS, Jonathan M. Buscaglia, MD, Sumit Kapoor, MD, Eun Ji Shin, MD, Anthony N. Kalloo, MD, Patrick I. Okolo, MD, MPH
Current affiliations: Department of Medicine and Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (M.A.K., A.M.L., K.B.D., V.K.S., V.C., S.G., M.I.C., J.M.B., S.K., E.J.S., A.N.K., P.I.O.), The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Medicine (J.M.B.), State University of New York, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York, USA 

Reprint requests: Patrick I. Okolo, III, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N Wolfe St, Blalock Bldg, Ste 404, Baltimore, MD 21205

Riassunto

Background

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and spiral enteroscopy (SE) are recently described device-assisted techniques in endoluminal evaluation of the small bowel. No studies comparing SBE and SE in patients with suspected small-bowel disorders have previously been reported.

Objective

The aims of this study were to compare SBE and SE in terms of diagnostic yield, procedure time, depth of maximal insertion, and complications.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary-care referral center.

Patients

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients at our institution undergoing anterograde SBE or SE between 2007 and 2009. Patients with altered anatomy or prior small-bowel surgery were excluded.

Intervention

Deep enteroscopy.

Main Outcome Measurement

Diagnostic yield.

Results

During the study period, 92 patients underwent 105 procedures (52 SBE, 53 SE). The most common indication for small-bowel endoscopy was obscure GI bleeding (n = 42). The diagnostic yield was not statistically different between SBE and SE (59.6% and 43.4%, respectively, P = .12). The overall diagnostic yield in patients with obscure GI bleeding was 67%. There was no significant difference between mean SBE and SE procedure times (53 minutes [range 15-99 minutes] vs 47 minutes [range 20-125 minutes], respectively; P = .2). The mean depth of maximal insertion beyond the ligament of Treitz for SE was significantly higher than that for SBE (301 cm [range 175-400 cm] vs 222 cm [range 110-400 cm], respectively; P < .001). Perforation occurred in one SBE procedure.

Limitations

Retrospective design and nonstandardized gas insufflation.

Conclusion

This is the first report comparing SE and SBE. Although SE yielded greater depth of maximal insertion than SBE, both techniques had similar diagnostic yields and procedure times. In addition, both techniques were safe and were particularly useful in patients with obscure GI bleeding.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Abbreviations : DBE, DMI, OGIB, SBE, SE


Mappa


 See CME section; p. 802
 DISCLOSURE: P.I. Okolo III disclosed a consultant relationship with Spirus Medical and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
 If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Okolo at pokolo2@jhmi.edu.


© 2010  American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 72 - N° 4

P. 766-772 - ottobre 2010 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Prospective study of the role of duodenal bulb biopsies in the diagnosis of celiac disease
  • Susana Gonzalez, Anupama Gupta, Jianfeng Cheng, Christina Tennyson, Suzanne K. Lewis, Govind Bhagat, Peter H.R. Green
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Diving deeper into the small bowel: a comparison of spiral and single-balloon enteroscopy
  • Andrew S. Ross

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.