Capsule Endoscopy Versus Colonoscopy in Patients With Previous Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Colonic anastomosis
Colonic capsule endoscopy
Colonoscopy
Colorectal cancer screening
Follow-up after colorectal surgery
Video
Journal
Gastroenterology research
ISSN: 1918-2805
Titre abrégé: Gastroenterology Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101519422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
16
07
2020
accepted:
25
09
2020
entrez:
23
11
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Colonic capsule endoscopy (CCE) derived from the video capsule endoscopy, initially proposed to explore the small bowel, has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for colonic polyp detection. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and reliability of CCE after colorectal surgery. Secondary outcomes were to identify the detection rate of colonic lesions and recognition of the surgical anastomosis as compared to colonoscopy. This is a prospective single-center study conducted over a 2-year period. Thirty-seven patients with a history of colorectal surgery were prospectively included in this study. Each patient received both CCE and colonoscopy, performed by different operators blinded to each other's results. Thirty-two patients (86.5%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. All capsules were naturally expelled. In three patients (9.4%), the anal verge was not identified during the CCE recording and the examination of the colon was considered incomplete. Surgical anastomosis was accurately identified by CCE in 78.2% of the patients versus 93.8% for colonoscopy (P = 0.65). Thirty-eight lesions were detected in 14 patients. The sensitivity of CCE to detect colonic polyps was 95.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-99.2%), the specificity 82.4% (95% CI: 59.0-93.8%). Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CCE to detect colonic polyps were 87.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No complications related to the passage of the capsule through the intestinal anastomosis were detected. CCE proved to be safe and feasible, reporting a similar detection rate of colonic lesion compared to colonoscopy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Colonic capsule endoscopy (CCE) derived from the video capsule endoscopy, initially proposed to explore the small bowel, has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for colonic polyp detection. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the safety, feasibility, and reliability of CCE after colorectal surgery. Secondary outcomes were to identify the detection rate of colonic lesions and recognition of the surgical anastomosis as compared to colonoscopy.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a prospective single-center study conducted over a 2-year period. Thirty-seven patients with a history of colorectal surgery were prospectively included in this study. Each patient received both CCE and colonoscopy, performed by different operators blinded to each other's results.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-two patients (86.5%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. All capsules were naturally expelled. In three patients (9.4%), the anal verge was not identified during the CCE recording and the examination of the colon was considered incomplete. Surgical anastomosis was accurately identified by CCE in 78.2% of the patients versus 93.8% for colonoscopy (P = 0.65). Thirty-eight lesions were detected in 14 patients. The sensitivity of CCE to detect colonic polyps was 95.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-99.2%), the specificity 82.4% (95% CI: 59.0-93.8%). Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CCE to detect colonic polyps were 87.0% and 93.3%, respectively. No complications related to the passage of the capsule through the intestinal anastomosis were detected.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
CCE proved to be safe and feasible, reporting a similar detection rate of colonic lesion compared to colonoscopy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33224368
doi: 10.14740/gr1309
pmc: PMC7665853
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
217-224Informations de copyright
Copyright 2020, Fiorillo et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All authors have no conflict of interest to declare in relation to this publication.
Références
Endoscopy. 2012 May;44(5):527-36
pubmed: 22389230
Surg Clin North Am. 2013 Feb;93(1):61-87
pubmed: 23177066
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Oct;64(4):556-62
pubmed: 16996349
Nature. 2000 May 25;405(6785):417
pubmed: 10839527
Eur Radiol. 2017 Dec;27(12):4979-4985
pubmed: 28677060
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;14(11):1533-1543.e8
pubmed: 27165469
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Sep;74(3):581-589.e1
pubmed: 21601200
Gastroenterology. 2016 Mar;150(3):758-768.e11
pubmed: 26892199
Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Feb;41(2):180-9
pubmed: 9556242
Endoscopy. 2015 Apr;47(4):352-76
pubmed: 25826168
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug 21;24(31):3556-3566
pubmed: 30131662
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jun;85(6):1157-1168.e2
pubmed: 28069475
Gut. 2015 Feb;64(2):272-81
pubmed: 24964317
Gastroenterology. 2018 May;154(7):1970-1984
pubmed: 29454795
Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 May;55(5):522-31
pubmed: 22513430
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76
pubmed: 24629422
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr;25(2):387-401
pubmed: 25839692
Gastroenterology. 2007 Jun;132(7):2297-303
pubmed: 17570204
Endoscopy. 2005 Sep;37(9):801-7
pubmed: 16116529
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 May;105(5):1076-86
pubmed: 19888198
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2564-2575
pubmed: 27304597
J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017 Oct 30;23(4):585-591
pubmed: 28571122
Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Sep;51(9):1345-9
pubmed: 18454291
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 14;20(22):6961-7
pubmed: 24944489