European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021
Detachable string magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy for complete observation of the upper gastrointestinal tract.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xiu Hui, Lu Yanyan, Liu Xishuang, Liu Fuguo, Zhang Lingyu, Zhao Chengye, Sun Xueguo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Wireless magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (WMCCE) was feasible, well tolerated, highly acceptable, and had high consistency in diagnosis of gastric diseases with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). But WMCCE is not suitable for inspection of the esophagus. We developed detachable string magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy (DS-MCCE) to observe gastroesophageal diseases.
METHODS: A total of 60 volunteers were enrolled. Thirty participants underwent DS-MCCE, and the other 30 underwent WMCCE. The primary outcome measures included swallowing time, esophageal transit time, the whole examination time, grade of air-bubble interference on esophageal, gastric preparation, visualization of Z-line and gastric mucosa, and discomfort scores.
RESULTS: The esophageal time (222.53 ± 107.53 s vs. 49.50 ± 34.90 s, P < 0.001) and the whole examination time (26.53 ± 6.33 min vs. 15.97±4.90 min, P < 0.001) in DS-MCCE group were longer than in WMCCE group. DS-MCCE had a significantly better visualization of Z-line visualization. Visualization of the gastric mucosa was assessed as good in 24 (80%) participants for DS-MCCE and 26 (86.6%) for WMCCE, moderate in 6 (20%) with DS-MCCE as compared with 4 (13.3%) with WMCCE. The visualization of gastric cardia for DS-MCCE was better than for WMCCE (100 vs 80%, P = 0.024). The visualization of gastric angle, antrum, and pylorus in DS-MCCE group was not as good as in WMCCE group (80 vs. 100%, 80 vs. 100%, 83.3 vs. 100%, P = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: DS-MCCE is feasible and well tolerated in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal diseases. For people who cannot stand conventional EGD or with contraindication of EGD, DS-MCCE may be an excellent alternative screening modality.
METHODS: A total of 60 volunteers were enrolled. Thirty participants underwent DS-MCCE, and the other 30 underwent WMCCE. The primary outcome measures included swallowing time, esophageal transit time, the whole examination time, grade of air-bubble interference on esophageal, gastric preparation, visualization of Z-line and gastric mucosa, and discomfort scores.
RESULTS: The esophageal time (222.53 ± 107.53 s vs. 49.50 ± 34.90 s, P < 0.001) and the whole examination time (26.53 ± 6.33 min vs. 15.97±4.90 min, P < 0.001) in DS-MCCE group were longer than in WMCCE group. DS-MCCE had a significantly better visualization of Z-line visualization. Visualization of the gastric mucosa was assessed as good in 24 (80%) participants for DS-MCCE and 26 (86.6%) for WMCCE, moderate in 6 (20%) with DS-MCCE as compared with 4 (13.3%) with WMCCE. The visualization of gastric cardia for DS-MCCE was better than for WMCCE (100 vs 80%, P = 0.024). The visualization of gastric angle, antrum, and pylorus in DS-MCCE group was not as good as in WMCCE group (80 vs. 100%, 80 vs. 100%, 83.3 vs. 100%, P = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: DS-MCCE is feasible and well tolerated in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal diseases. For people who cannot stand conventional EGD or with contraindication of EGD, DS-MCCE may be an excellent alternative screening modality.