Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
Motorized spiral enteroscopy versus double-balloon enteroscopy: a case-matched study.
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.
Chan Webber, Wei Lim Kim, Tan Terence, Hsiang Lim Gek, Kong Christopher, Salazar Ennaliza, Koay Doreen, Khor Christopher, Asokkumar Ravishankar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has been postulated to ease the complexities of the standard-of-care double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). However, there are no comparative studies between MSE and DBE. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes and safety between MSE and DBE.
METHODS: In this case-matched study, patients were matched 1:2 (MSE/DBE) by age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology scores. Thirty-one patients who underwent MSE were compared with 62 patients who underwent DBE from 2014 to 2022. Our primary outcomes were to compare the technical and diagnostic success rates between DBE and MSE. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the therapeutic success and adverse event rates.
RESULTS: The main indications for enteroscopy were suspected GI bleeding and positive radiologic findings. Prior abdominal surgery was reported in 35.5% and 22.6% of DBE and MSE patients, respectively. Most were antegrade enteroscopy (71%). We found no significant difference in the technical success (DBE 98.4% vs MSE 96.8%, P = .62), diagnostic success (DBE 66.1% vs MSE 54.8%, P = .25), and therapeutic success rates (DBE 62.8% vs MSE 52.9%, P = .62) between the groups. Adverse events occurred in 1 DBE and 11 MSE patients. Most were minor (n = 10, 25.6%). Two patients (5.1%) in the MSE group sustained deep lacerations in the proximal esophagus requiring hospitalization. One developed ileal perforation after MSE needing surgical repair.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring enteroscopy, the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of MSE is similar to DBE. An increased frequency of adverse events was observed with MSE. There are some restrictions in the indication because of the design of MSE.
METHODS: In this case-matched study, patients were matched 1:2 (MSE/DBE) by age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology scores. Thirty-one patients who underwent MSE were compared with 62 patients who underwent DBE from 2014 to 2022. Our primary outcomes were to compare the technical and diagnostic success rates between DBE and MSE. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the therapeutic success and adverse event rates.
RESULTS: The main indications for enteroscopy were suspected GI bleeding and positive radiologic findings. Prior abdominal surgery was reported in 35.5% and 22.6% of DBE and MSE patients, respectively. Most were antegrade enteroscopy (71%). We found no significant difference in the technical success (DBE 98.4% vs MSE 96.8%, P = .62), diagnostic success (DBE 66.1% vs MSE 54.8%, P = .25), and therapeutic success rates (DBE 62.8% vs MSE 52.9%, P = .62) between the groups. Adverse events occurred in 1 DBE and 11 MSE patients. Most were minor (n = 10, 25.6%). Two patients (5.1%) in the MSE group sustained deep lacerations in the proximal esophagus requiring hospitalization. One developed ileal perforation after MSE needing surgical repair.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring enteroscopy, the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of MSE is similar to DBE. An increased frequency of adverse events was observed with MSE. There are some restrictions in the indication because of the design of MSE.