ABSTRACT
Background and study aims: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a safe and efficient method for diagnosis of small-bowel diseases. Since its development, different models have appeared. The aim of this study was to analyze which of the different models of SBCE has the best diagnostic yield. Patients and methods: Extensive medical literature research was reviewed, using MESH terms, searching studies comparing different SBCE types. We analyzed the diagnostic yield of all the comparisons and when there were 2 or more studies that compared the same model of SBCEs, a meta-analysis was performed. Results: Ten eligible studies including 1065 SBCEs procedures were identified. The main indication was occult gastrointestinal bleeding in 9/10 studies. Two of them included anemia, chronic diarrhea and/or chronic abdominal pain. The indication in one article was celiac disease. In 9 studies, different types of SBCEs (MiroCam, Endocapsule, OMOM and CapsoCam) were compared with PillCam (SB, SB2 and SB3). Three studies compared MiroCam vs PillCam and CapsoCam vs PillCam, while two studies contrast Endocapsule vs PillCam. None of the SBCEs show superiority over PillCam [OR 0.78 (95%CI;0.60-1.01)]. One study compared SBCEs other than Pillcam (MiroCam vs Endocapsule). Nine studies did not find statistical differences between SBCEs, one showed better diagnostic yield of Mirocam compared with PillCam SB3 (p=0.02). The difference between these SBCE was not replayed in the metaanalysis [OR 0.77 (95%CI;0.49-1.21)]. Conclusions: Despite the appearance of new SBCE models, there are no differences in diagnostic yield; therefore, SBCE endoscopist's performance should be based on experience and availability.
Subject(s)
Capsule Endoscopy , Celiac Disease , Intestinal Diseases , Capsule Endoscopy/methods , Celiac Disease/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Humans , Intestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Intestine, SmallABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Double-balloon enteroscopy has been improving the visualization of the entire intestine for more than a decade. It is a complementary method in the study of intestinal diseases that enables biopsies to be taken and treatments to be administered. Our aim was to describe its main indications, insertion routes, diagnostic/therapeutic yield, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred to our unit with suspected small bowel pathology were included. The insertion route (oral/anal) was determined through diagnostic suspicion. The variables measured were: insertion route, small bowel examination extent, endoscopic diagnosis/treatment, biopsy/histopathology report, complications, and surgical findings. RESULTS: The study included 28 double-balloon enteroscopies performed on 23 patients, of which 10 were women and 13 were men (mean age of 52.95 years). The oral approach was the most widely used (n=21), the main indication was overt small bowel bleeding (n=16), and the general diagnostic yield was 65.21%. The therapeutic intervention rate was 39.1% and the procedure was effective in all the cases. The most widely used treatment was argon plasma therapy (n=7). The complication rate was 8.6%; one patient presented with low blood pressure due to active bleeding and another had deep mucosal laceration caused by the argon plasma. CONCLUSIONS: Double-balloon enteroscopy is a safe and efficacious method for the study and management of small bowel diseases, with an elevated diagnostic and therapeutic yield.