Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2006
What we have learned from 5 cases of permanent capsule retention.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Baichi Matthew M, Arifuddin Razi M, Mantry Parvez S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy allows the direct visualization of the entire small bowel. There is limited data on the clinical significance of permanent capsule retention.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to document the frequency, findings, risk factors, management, and outcomes of permanent capsule retention.
DESIGN: Retrospective, case series.
SETTING: Single tertiary referral center, outpatient.
RESULTS: Permanent capsule retention occurred in 2% of our cases (5/245). The following pathologies caused insufficient capsule passage: adenocarcinoma in a patient with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (1), idiopathic stenosis (1), stricturing Crohn's disease (2), and adhesions (1). Capsule retention lead to a symptomatic small-bowel obstruction in only 1 of these cases (0.4%). As a consequence, 2 cases had successful endoscopic retrieval; 3 cases required surgical intervention. Four of 5 patients had a clear clinical benefit resulting from the capsule findings or the secondary procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Permanent capsule retention is rare. Even though this event may lead to the necessity of an endoscopic or surgical intervention, a clear benefit for the patient in respect to the underlying disease resulted in 4 of 5 patients.
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to document the frequency, findings, risk factors, management, and outcomes of permanent capsule retention.
DESIGN: Retrospective, case series.
SETTING: Single tertiary referral center, outpatient.
RESULTS: Permanent capsule retention occurred in 2% of our cases (5/245). The following pathologies caused insufficient capsule passage: adenocarcinoma in a patient with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (1), idiopathic stenosis (1), stricturing Crohn's disease (2), and adhesions (1). Capsule retention lead to a symptomatic small-bowel obstruction in only 1 of these cases (0.4%). As a consequence, 2 cases had successful endoscopic retrieval; 3 cases required surgical intervention. Four of 5 patients had a clear clinical benefit resulting from the capsule findings or the secondary procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Permanent capsule retention is rare. Even though this event may lead to the necessity of an endoscopic or surgical intervention, a clear benefit for the patient in respect to the underlying disease resulted in 4 of 5 patients.