Superior outcomes with double-balloon enteroscopy for small bowel lesion marking followed by intracorporeal as opposed to extracorporeal resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is used for the diagnosis and therapy of small bowel disease. Endoscopic sampling and marking small bowel lesions destined for surgery permit intracorporeal resection and reconstruction (IRR), thereby facilitating a complete minimally invasive technique. There are limited data that compare outcomes of IRR to conventional extracorporeal resection and reconstruction (ERR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing pre-operative DBE for lesion marking followed by laparoscopic IRR compared to those undergoing ERR. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent DBE followed by small bowel resection from 2006 to 2017 at a single tertiary care medical center. IRR was defined as laparoscopic inspection to identify the lesion (previously marked by DBE or by laparoscopic-assisted DBE) followed by intra-abdominal bowel resection and anastomosis with specimen extraction via minimal extension of a laparoscopic port site. ERR was defined as extracorporeal resection and/or reconstruction performed via a conventional or mini-laparotomy abdominal incision. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Thirty-two patients (39%) had ERR and 50 patients (61%) had IRR. The most common indications for DBE were small bowel bleeding (76%) and small bowel mass or thickening on prior imaging studies (16%). Successful DBE was higher in the IRR group when compared to the ERR group, but not significantly different (90% vs 75%, p-value 0.07). Patients who underwent IRR had faster bowel function recovery (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), shorter time to discharge (3 vs 7 days, p < 0.01), and fewer post-operative complications (10 vs 18; p < 0.01), when compared to the ERR group. CONCLUSION: DBE successfully facilitated laparoscopic small bowel IRR and this approach was associated with faster return of bowel function, shorter recovery time, and decreased morbidity when compared to ERR.