Evaluation of the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of retrograde through-the-scope balloon enteroscopy and single-balloon enteroscopy.
Enteroscopy
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Retrograde enteroscopy
Single balloon enteroscopy
Small intestinal endoscopy
Small intestine
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1948-5190
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532474
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Nov 2020
16 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
18
06
2020
revised:
26
09
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
entrez:
3
12
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
4
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retrograde single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a minimally invasive procedure which is less frequently performed compared with antegrade SBE. There are few studies on the retrograde through-the-scope enteroscopy (TTSE), a novel technique for evaluation of the small bowel. To compare the clinical utility and safety of retrograde TTSE with retrograde SBE. Clinical data and complications of retrograde TTSE (2014-2018) and retrograde SBE (2011-2018) performed in a community hospital were reviewed and presented as mean ± SD or frequency (%) and compared using proper statistical tests. Technical success was defined as insertion of the enteroscope > 20 cm beyond ileocecal valve. Data obtained from 54 retrograde SBE in 49 patients and 27 retrograde TTSE in 26 patients were studied. The most common indication for retrograde enteroscopy was iron deficiency anemia (41 patients) followed by gastrointestinal bleeding (37 patients), and chronic diarrhea (7 patients). The duration of retrograde SBE procedure (91.9 ± 34.2 min) was significantly longer compared with retrograde TTSE (70.5 ± 30.7 min) ( Both retrograde TTSE and retrograde SBE are feasible and safe. Retrograde TTSE takes a shorter time and has a comparable technical success with SBE. TTSE has a lower capacity of small bowel insertion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Retrograde single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a minimally invasive procedure which is less frequently performed compared with antegrade SBE. There are few studies on the retrograde through-the-scope enteroscopy (TTSE), a novel technique for evaluation of the small bowel.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare the clinical utility and safety of retrograde TTSE with retrograde SBE.
METHODS
METHODS
Clinical data and complications of retrograde TTSE (2014-2018) and retrograde SBE (2011-2018) performed in a community hospital were reviewed and presented as mean ± SD or frequency (%) and compared using proper statistical tests. Technical success was defined as insertion of the enteroscope > 20 cm beyond ileocecal valve.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data obtained from 54 retrograde SBE in 49 patients and 27 retrograde TTSE in 26 patients were studied. The most common indication for retrograde enteroscopy was iron deficiency anemia (41 patients) followed by gastrointestinal bleeding (37 patients), and chronic diarrhea (7 patients). The duration of retrograde SBE procedure (91.9 ± 34.2 min) was significantly longer compared with retrograde TTSE (70.5 ± 30.7 min) (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both retrograde TTSE and retrograde SBE are feasible and safe. Retrograde TTSE takes a shorter time and has a comparable technical success with SBE. TTSE has a lower capacity of small bowel insertion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33269055
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i11.459
pmc: PMC7677883
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
459-468Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Apr;79(4):694
pubmed: 24630087
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Feb;4(2):E202-4
pubmed: 26878050
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov;82(5):855-60
pubmed: 26092618
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2021 Oct 1;55(9):792-797
pubmed: 32947375
Endoscopy. 2006 Jan;38(1):42-8
pubmed: 16429354
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun;26(3):209-20
pubmed: 22704565
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Mar;105(3):575-81
pubmed: 20051942
Endoscopy. 2011 Jun;43(6):472-6
pubmed: 21384320
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Oct;62(4):545-50
pubmed: 16185969
Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Feb;53(2):216-20
pubmed: 11174299
Endoscopy. 2015 Apr;47(4):352-76
pubmed: 25826168
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;24(10):1631-8
pubmed: 19686408
Endoscopy. 2004 Dec;36(12):1107-8
pubmed: 15578304
Endoscopy. 2018 Apr;50(4):423-446
pubmed: 29539652
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan;85(1):22-31
pubmed: 27374798
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;55(10):1243-1247
pubmed: 32907435
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2009 Jul;19(3):371-9
pubmed: 19647646
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;110(9):1265-87; quiz 1288
pubmed: 26303132
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug 10;8(15):501-7
pubmed: 27606042
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):669-70
pubmed: 24054746
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Nov;76(5):972-80
pubmed: 22980289
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):600-7
pubmed: 26253015
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jun;71(7):1218-23
pubmed: 20409544
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Dec;82(6):975-90
pubmed: 26388546
Endoscopy. 2004 Dec;36(12):1067-73
pubmed: 15578296
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Mar;102(3):527-35
pubmed: 17222315
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Nov 16;12(11):459-468
pubmed: 33269055