Spa therapy together with supervised self-mobilisation improves pain, function and quality of life in patients with chronic shoulder pain: a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

To determine whether spa therapy has a beneficial effect on pain and disability in patients with chronic shoulder pain, this single-blind randomised controlled clinical trial included patients with chronic shoulder pain due to miscellaneous conditions attending one of four spa centres as outpatients. Patients were randomised into two groups: spa therapy (18 days of standardised treatment combining thermal therapy together with supervised mobilisation in a thermal pool) and controls (spa therapy delayed for 6 months: 'immediate versus delayed treatment' paradigm). All patients continued usual treatments during the 6-month follow-up period. The main endpoint was the mean change in the French-Quick DASH (F-QD) score at 6 months. The effect size of spa therapy was calculated, and the proportion of patients reaching minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) was compared. Secondary endpoints were the mean change in SF-36, treatment use and tolerance. One hundred eighty-six patients were included (94 patients as controls, 92 in the spa group) and analysed by intention to treat. At 6 months, the mean change in the F-QD score was statistically significantly greater among spa therapy patients than controls (- 32.6 versus - 8.15%; p < 0.001) with an effect size of 1.32 (95%CI: 0.97-1.68). A significantly greater proportion of spa therapy patients reached MCII (59.3 versus 17.9%). Spa therapy was well tolerated with a significant impact on SF-36 components but not on drug intake. Spa therapy provided a statistically significant benefit on pain, function and quality of life in patients with chronic shoulder pain after 6 months compared with usual care.

Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing capsule and double-balloon enteroscopy for identification and treatment of small-bowel vascular lesions: a prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Few data are available concerning the long-term outcome of patients treated endoscopically for bleeding small-bowel vascular lesions (SBVL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for SBVLs detected by video capsule enteroscopy (VCE). The secondary aim was to assess risk factors for rebleeding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study (15 centers) was conducted, involving patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and SBVL on VCE who were treated during double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). The likelihood of bleeding was defined according to VCE findings, as high or low. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients underwent endotherapy during DBE, and 64 (35 %) had rebleeding during the 1 year follow-up period. Multivariate analysis indicated that cardiac disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.20 - 3.48; P < 0.01) and the presence of overt bleeding (HR 1.78, 95 %CI 1.07 - 2.97; P = 0.03) at presentation were associated with the risk of rebleeding. The association between chronic renal failure and the risk of rebleeding was close to statistical significance (HR 1.77, 95 %CI 0.94 - 3.33; P = 0.08). Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested that patients treated during DBE for a lesion with low likelihood of bleeding on VCE had higher rebleeding rates than those with a high likelihood of bleeding (HR 1.87, 95 %CI 0.94 - 3.37; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Despite long-term remission in most patients, about one-third had rebleeding at 1 year. Independent risk factors for rebleeding were cardiac disease and overt bleeding at original presentation. The lesion characteristics on VCE may be useful to evaluate the bleeding potential of the lesion and may be used for better selection of patients for DBE.

Multicenter comparison of double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Spiral enteroscopy is a novel technique for small bowel exploration. The aim of this study is to compare double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected small bowel lesions. METHODS: Patients with suspected small bowel lesion diagnosed by capsule endoscopy were prospectively included between September 2009 and December 2010 in five tertiary-care academic medical centers. RESULTS: After capsule endoscopy, 191 double-balloon enteroscopy and 50 spiral enteroscopies were performed. Indications were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in 194 (80%) of cases. Lesions detected by capsule endoscopy were mainly angioectasia. Double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy resulted in finding one or more lesions in 70% and 75% of cases, respectively. The mean diagnosis procedure time and the average small bowel explored length during double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy were, respectively, 60 min (45-80) and 55 min (45-80) (P=0.74), and 200 cm (150-300) and 220 cm (200-300) (P=0.13). Treatment during double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy was possible in 66% and 70% of cases, respectively. There was no significant major procedure-related complication. CONCLUSION: Spiral enteroscopy appears as safe as double-balloon enteroscopy for small bowel exploration with a similar diagnostic and therapeutic yield. Comparison between the two procedures in terms of duration and length of small bowel explored is slightly in favor of spiral enteroscopy but not significantly.

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.

BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

Double-cannulation and large papillary balloon dilation: key to successful endoscopic treatment of mirizzi syndrome in low insertion of cystic duct.

Mirizzi syndrome is a rare cause of benign biliary obstruction and is often predisposed by low insertion of the cystic duct on the common hepatic duct. Through a case series of three patients, we emphasize the importance of double cannulation (cystic duct and hepatic duct) followed by sphincterotomy and large balloon papillary dilatation for successful endoscopic stone clearance in such patients.

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are ≥6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging.

Could the colonic capsule PillCam Colon be clinically useful for selecting patients who deserve a complete colonoscopy?: results of clinical comparison with colonoscopy in the perspective of colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Preliminary studies have shown the possibility of detecting colonic polyps and tumors using the PillCam Colon capsule endoscope (CCE) (Given Imaging, Yoqneam, Israel). The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of CCE to detect clinically relevant colonic findings as compared with colonoscopy, and further, to test the assumption that CCE used in the frame of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could accurately discriminate patients deserving a complete colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 128 patients (67 men, 55+/-14 years) with an indication of colonoscopy were investigated by CCE, followed by colonoscopy under general anesthesia on the next day. Bowel cleansing was carried out according to a previously published protocol (3 l polyethylene glycol+2 doses of sodium phosphate solution). All CCE recordings were read by the same physician and all colonoscopies, performed by the same operator, were blinded to each other's results. The primary outcome of the study was the decision made by the CCE reader to indicate a colonoscopy, compared with the final result of the colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the agreement between CCE and colonoscopy for making a diagnosis of colorectal disease, as well as detection rate, number, and size of polyps. RESULTS: Two patients were excluded: one did not swallow the capsule and the other was diagnosed with a jejunal stenosis by the CCE. The CCE found at least one clinically relevant colonic finding in 71 patients (56.3%), and the colonoscopy results confirmed this finding in 56 patients, showing a sensitivity of CCE of 87.5% (confidence interval (CI) 79.4-95.6%) and a specificity of 75.8% (CI 65.4-86.2%). With a prevalence of 50.8% of clinically relevant findings at colonoscopy, the positive predictive value of CCE was 78.9%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 85.4%. The agreement between CCE and colonoscopy was significant for the detection of any colonic lesion (P<0.0001), polyps (P<0.001), as well as for the detection of the number (P<0.0001) and size (P=0.0083) of polyps. Tolerance of the procedure was excellent, and no complication was reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of this study, CCE seemed to be effective in detecting clinically significant colonic findings in patients with an indication of colonoscopy. The high NPV and excellent tolerance of CCE suggest that it could be evaluated in large CRC-screening programs and further studies in screening conditions should also evaluate its cost-efficacy ratio.

Capsule endoscopy: technique and indications.

Since it was introduced in 2000, capsule endoscopy has become the gold standard for endoscopic examination of the small bowel in several clinical situations such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, suspicion of Crohn's disease, and surveillance of polyposis syndromes. In this technique a miniaturised endoscope, embedded in a swallowable capsule, is propelled through the gut by peristalsis and reaches the right colon in 5-8h. Images captured by the capsule are recorded on a hard drive in a belt worn by the patient. In addition to the extensive literature currently available on small bowel CE, new capsule devices are currently under evaluation for the examination of the colon with the purpose of screening for colorectal cancer, and of the oesophagus for screening for oesophageal varices and Barrett's oesophagus. These latter indications currently remain under evaluation. This review considers the technical aspects of capsule endoscopy and discusses the indications. Issues of safety and tolerance are also discussed.

[International consensus in Paris, 2006, on the indications and use of the endoscopic videocapsule test. Report of the SFED Capsule Commission]. / Consensus international de Paris 2006 sur les indications et les modalités de l'examen par capsule vidéoendoscopique. Rapport de la commission capsule de la Sfed.

Following the 4th International Conference on Capsule Endoscopy (ICCE, Miami 2005), the main indications for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) were reviewed. The consensus guidelines were published in Endoscopy in 2005. These propositions for VCE were based on an analysis of evidence reported in the literature published through 2005. A small working group of experts examined each methodology and presented their report at the plenary session. The final conclusions were then published. At the ICCE 2006 held in Paris, this first version of the consensus guidelines was improved and completed.

A prospective national study on colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in 2000 in France.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the practice of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in France in 2000. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in November 2000 using questionnaires sent to all gastroenterologists practicing in France (N=2858) who were asked to reply to items concerning colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies performed on two workdays chosen in advance. The response rate was 32.8%. Data were extrapolated to establish estimates for the entire year. RESULTS: An estimated 894000 colonoscopies and 115320 sigmoidoscopies were performed in 2000. Single-use material was used in 22.1% of the procedures. Indications for endoscopy were mainly hematochezia (21.6%), gastrointestinal symptoms (35%) and surveillance of patients with a history of previous polypectomy (15%). Colorectal cancer screening was the indication for 20% of colonoscopies. Abnormal findings were reported for 54.8% of the endoscopies (polyps for 287218 procedures and cancer for 32799). Failure was noted in 4.9% of colonoscopies. The complication rate was 0.48%. Most polyps were adenomas (64.4%) or hyperplasic polyps (28.1%). The overall estimated number of colonoscopies with polypectomy was 224133. CONCLUSION: In 2000 there was an increased rate of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening (20%) but an overall decrease (2.5%) in the total number of colonoscopies compared to 1999. Abnormal findings were disclosed by 54.8% of the procedures. Extrapolation from these data indicates that colonoscopic screening enabled the diagnosis of 32799 colorectal cancers.

Intraoperative endoscopist-controlled guide wire cannulation technique sphincterotomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES) is considered superior to preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy and other treatment modalities for management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Here we describe the method and results of our technique of IOES in the supine position during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using a guide wire cannulation (intraoperative supine endoscopic sphincterotomy by endoscopist-controlled guide wire cannulation) [ISEEG] technique). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the outcome for 36 patients undergoing LC with IOES (ISEEG technique) for acute biliary colic and jaundice with suspicion of choledocholithiasis. RESULTS: On confirmation of CBD stones by intraoperative cholangiogram, CBD catheterization was successful in 34/36 (94.44%) patients with successful stone clearance in all of them by the ISEEG technique demonstrating 100% efficacy for stone clearance; the remaining 2 patients needed conversion to open surgery. The median time for the ISEEG technique during intraoperative sphincterotomy was 9 minutes (range, 7-23 minutes). Average hospital stay was 4.8 days (range, 2-15 days). At the 1-month follow-up, all patients were biliary symptom-free. Three of 36 patients (8.33%) had mild postoperative pancreatitis. There was no procedure-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: LC coupled with the ISEEG technique performed by an expert endoscopist is an effective single-stage minimally invasive treatment for CBD stones with good efficacy, good stone clearance rates, and low morbidity.

Novel applications of balloon endoscopy.

Double-balloon endoscopy has been available for investigation of the small bowel since 2001, concomitantly with capsule endoscopy. Beyond established indications, endoscopic examination of the small bowel is currently performed in many clinical conditions involving the small bowel, which were under investigated in the past. Biopsies of lesions observed by capsule endoscopy or balloon enteroscopy can be taken and the lesions can sometimes be treated during a balloon Endoscopic procedure. Double-balloon endoscopy can be used in patients when conventional endoscopy was incomplete. The main applications of double-balloon endoscopy are the examination of patients with a surgically modified gastrointestinal tract and colonoscopy after a previously failed attempt to reach the cecum. In the latter indication, using a dedicated double-balloon colonoscope, the success rate of cecal intubation may be nearly 100%.

Capsule endoscopy in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-enteropathy and miscellaneous, rare intestinal diseases.

Despite significant advances over the last decade, mucosal lesions of the small bowel are poorly detected by imaging studies such as CT scan, MRI-enteroclysis and contrast-enhanced abdominal ultrasound. Capsule endoscopy (CE) has dramatically changed the diagnostic approach to intestinal diseases. Moreover, the use of CE can be extended to include other conditions. However, it is difficult to assess the positive influence of CE on patient outcomes in conditions involving a small number of patients, or in critically ill and difficult to examine patients. CE has the advantage of diagnosing intestinal lesions and of directing the use of double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in order to obtain biopsy specimens. Moreover, CE allows repeated assessment in chronic conditions, especially to detect relapse of an infectious disease.