American journal of translational research · 2022
Diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in small bowel diseases.
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.
Qian Lijuan, Gu Yijie, Zheng Lu, Xia Tingting
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in small bowel diseases.
METHODS: The clinical data of 134 cases of CE and 109 cases of DBE examined in our gastroscopy room from January 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The two groups of patients were compared as to disease diagnostic rate, examination time, examination tolerance, and incidence of adverse reactions.
RESULTS: The two groups showed no significant difference in general data (all P>0.05). The DBE group showed a higher disease diagnostic rate than the CE group (P<0.05). Significantly higher rates of suspected intestinal bleeding were observed in the DBE group than those of the CE group (P<0.05), but no significant differences were found in the diagnosis of unexplained abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and others (all P>0.05). The DBE group required a longer examination time, and had a higher incidence of adverse reactions, and a lower examination tolerance than the CE group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both DBE and CE are effective in small bowel diseases diagnoses, but DBE demonstrated greater potential in diagnosing small bowel bleeding.
METHODS: The clinical data of 134 cases of CE and 109 cases of DBE examined in our gastroscopy room from January 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The two groups of patients were compared as to disease diagnostic rate, examination time, examination tolerance, and incidence of adverse reactions.
RESULTS: The two groups showed no significant difference in general data (all P>0.05). The DBE group showed a higher disease diagnostic rate than the CE group (P<0.05). Significantly higher rates of suspected intestinal bleeding were observed in the DBE group than those of the CE group (P<0.05), but no significant differences were found in the diagnosis of unexplained abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and others (all P>0.05). The DBE group required a longer examination time, and had a higher incidence of adverse reactions, and a lower examination tolerance than the CE group (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Both DBE and CE are effective in small bowel diseases diagnoses, but DBE demonstrated greater potential in diagnosing small bowel bleeding.