Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2007
Success rate of retrograde double-balloon enteroscopy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Mehdizadeh Shahab, Han Nancy J, Cheng Derek W, Chen Gary C, Lo Simon K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Retrograde double-balloon enteroscopy (rDBE) is technically a different procedure from its antegrade counterpart. Its unique indications, success rate, and learning curve have not been specifically reported.
OBJECTIVE: To examine technical issues specific to the rDBE approach.
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: Single tertiary-care center.
PATIENTS: All patients referred for rDBE.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Procedure duration, technical success, learning curve, and complications related to rDBE.
RESULTS: A total of 59 rDBEs were performed on 56 patients for obscure GI bleeding (46.4%), metastatic carcinoids (23.2%), Crohn's disease (14.3%), and other indications. rDBE enabled a diagnosis in 47.5% of procedures and had a 38% diagnostic rate in finding primary small-bowel lesions that were responsible for metastatic carcinoids. The mean (standard deviation) total procedure time was 111.3 +/- 39.9 minutes. Procedure failure occurred in 12 cases (21%), which is significantly more than reported with antegrade procedures (2%). Failure was more common among patients with a prior abdominal or pelvic surgery (P = .001), and the time to achieve a stable ileal intubation was prolonged in these patients (13.9 vs 38.1 minutes; P = .0006). A trend was noted toward successful small-bowel access and increased lengths of small bowel examined after 20 procedures were performed.
LIMITATIONS: Small retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: rDBE is effective for the evaluation and the treatment of lower small-intestinal lesions; however, maintaining access through the ileocecal valve may be difficult. Prior surgery may be an important factor associated with failure. A minimum of 20 rDBE procedures was needed to minimize procedure failure, examine a substantial segment of the small-bowel, and shorten procedure duration.
OBJECTIVE: To examine technical issues specific to the rDBE approach.
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: Single tertiary-care center.
PATIENTS: All patients referred for rDBE.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Procedure duration, technical success, learning curve, and complications related to rDBE.
RESULTS: A total of 59 rDBEs were performed on 56 patients for obscure GI bleeding (46.4%), metastatic carcinoids (23.2%), Crohn's disease (14.3%), and other indications. rDBE enabled a diagnosis in 47.5% of procedures and had a 38% diagnostic rate in finding primary small-bowel lesions that were responsible for metastatic carcinoids. The mean (standard deviation) total procedure time was 111.3 +/- 39.9 minutes. Procedure failure occurred in 12 cases (21%), which is significantly more than reported with antegrade procedures (2%). Failure was more common among patients with a prior abdominal or pelvic surgery (P = .001), and the time to achieve a stable ileal intubation was prolonged in these patients (13.9 vs 38.1 minutes; P = .0006). A trend was noted toward successful small-bowel access and increased lengths of small bowel examined after 20 procedures were performed.
LIMITATIONS: Small retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: rDBE is effective for the evaluation and the treatment of lower small-intestinal lesions; however, maintaining access through the ileocecal valve may be difficult. Prior surgery may be an important factor associated with failure. A minimum of 20 rDBE procedures was needed to minimize procedure failure, examine a substantial segment of the small-bowel, and shorten procedure duration.