双气囊小肠镜与胶囊内镜诊断小肠出血病因比较

目的比较双气囊小肠镜和胶囊内镜在小肠出血中的诊断准确率和实用价值。方法24例原因不明的可疑小肠出血患者分别接受双气囊小肠镜和胶囊内镜检查。双气囊小肠镜首选进镜方式分为经口或经肛2种，首选方式检查后未发现病灶者，日后改换进镜方式再行检查。胶囊内镜采用以色列GIVEN公司产品。2种检查方法分别由专门医师独立操作并诊断，最后进行汇总比较。结果24例患者中21例通过小肠镜检查发现病灶，总检出率为87．5％。24例患者行胶囊内镜检查后，有阳性发现者11例(45．8％)，另13例无异常发现。双气囊小肠镜检查发现的阳性病灶均经活检病理和手术探查证实，其病因诊断准确率为87．5％，胶囊内镜诊断准确率为25％。在耐受性评估方面，胶囊内镜和全麻下经口进镜的耐受性最佳，以后依次为非麻醉经肛方式和非麻醉经口方式。所有小肠镜和胶囊内镜检查者中未见操作相关的严重不良反应。结论①经口和经肛方式结合能使双气囊小肠镜完成对全小肠的检查。②双气囊小肠镜在不明原因小肠出血的病因诊断方面明显优于胶囊内镜检查。③胶囊内镜在小肠多节段病变和长段病变的诊断上仍有一定价值。④胶囊内镜和全麻下经口双气囊小肠镜检查是一项易为患者接受的、安全的检查方法。     

Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: A video capsule has been developed to acquire photographic images of the small intestine during normal peristaltic motion. METHODS: Patients between 21 and 80 years of age referred for enteroscopy because of obscure GI bleeding were offered entry into a trial in which they would undergo both capsule endoscopy and subsequent push enteroscopy. Results of capsule examinations were compared with push enteroscopy findings. Capsule endoscopy was performed with the Given M2A video capsule system. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (12 women, 9 men, average age 61 years) were enrolled, all of whom completed the study. A bleeding site was found in 11 of 20 patients during capsule endoscopy. No additional intestinal diagnoses were made by enteroscopy. The yield of push enteroscopy in the evaluation of obscure bleeding was 30% (6/20), the yield of capsule endoscopy 55% (11/20). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0625). Capsule endoscopy found a distal source of bleeding in 5 of 14 patients who had normal push enteroscopic examinations. Patients preferred capsule endoscopy to enteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that capsule endoscopy provides excellent visualization of the small intestine, is well tolerated by patients, and is safe. Capsule endoscopy identified small intestinal bleeding sites beyond the range of push enteroscopy.     

What we have learned and what to expect from capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy was conceived by Gabriel Iddan and Paul Swain independently two decades ago. These applications include but are not limited to Crohn’s disease of the small bowel, occult gastrointestinal bleeding, non steroidal anti inflammatory drug induced smallbowel disease, carcinoid tumors of the small bowel,gastro intestinal stromal tumors of the small bowel andother disease affecting the small bowel. Capsule endoscopy has been compared to traditional small bowelseries, computerized tomography studies and pushenteroscopy. The diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopyhas consistently been superior in the diagnosis of smallbowel disease compared to the competing methods(small bowel series, computerized tomography, pushenteroscopy) of diagnosis. For this reason capsule en-doscopy has enjoyed a meteoric success. Image qualityhas been improved with increased number of pixels,automatic light exposure adaptation and wider angle ofview. Further applications of capsule endoscopy of other areas of the digestive tract are being explored. Theincreased transmission rate of images per second hasmade capsule endoscopy of the esophagus a realisticpossibility. Technological advances that include a double imager capsule with a nearly panoramic view of the colon and a variable frame rate adjusted to the movement of the capsule in the colon have made capsuleendoscopy of the colon feasible. The diagnostic ratefor the identification of patients with polyps equal to orlarger than 6 mm is high. Future advances in technology and biotechnology will lead to further progress.Capsule endoscopy is following the successful moderntrend in medicine that replaces invasive tests with lessinvasive methodology.     

A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy is used to investigate the small bowel in patients with GI bleeding of obscure etiology. Capsule endoscopy was compared prospectively with push enteroscopy in 20 patients with GI hemorrhage. METHODS: Twenty patients (8 men, 12 women; mean age 65.5 years, range 38-80 years) were enrolled in the study. All had undergone non-diagnostic EGD, colonoscopy, and barium contrast radiography of the small bowel. All patients underwent capsule endoscopy followed by push enteroscopy. The physician performing the enteroscopy (senior endoscopist) interpreted the capsule endoscopy in an unblinded manner, while a second blinded reviewer (endoscopy fellow) interpreted the capsule endoscopy to establish interinterpreter reliability. RESULTS: There was complete agreement between the blinded and the unblinded physicians in 18 of 20 cases; minor disparities were noted in the remaining two cases. In the small bowel, capsule endoscopy identified positive findings in 14 (70%) patients, whereas, push enteroscopy identified positive findings in 5 (25%) patients. Despite these results, the findings were definitive in only 6 of the 20 patients by using capsule endoscopy, and in two of 20 patients with push enteroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: When strict standards of interpretation were used, capsule endoscopy resulted in more positive findings than push enteroscopy, but the number of definitive findings for both imaging methods was low. There was a high degree of reliability between a novice and an experienced endoscopist with respect to the interpretation of capsule endoscopy.     

Wireless capsule video endoscopy compared to barium follow-through and computerised tomography in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease—final report

BACKGROUND: Wireless capsule endoscopy is a superior diagnostic tool to barium small bowel follow-through and enteroscopy in diagnosing patients with occult blood loss. AIM: To compare capsule endoscopy with barium follow-through and entero-computerised tomography in patients with suspected Crohn's disease. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with suspected Crohn's disease underwent the three examinations. The radiologist and gastroenterologist were blinded to each other's results. In cases of discrepancy, colonoscopy and ileoscopy were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (22 males), mean age 28.4 years, were included. Eighty-eight percent had abdominal pain, 83% had diarrhoea and 69% had weight loss. The diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy was 77% versus 23% and 20% of barium and computerised tomography examinations, respectively (P < 0.05). The capsule detected all of the lesions diagnosed by barium follow-through and entero-computerised tomography. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule endoscopy is a superior and more sensitive diagnostic tool than barium follow-through and entero-computerised tomography in patients with suspected Crohn's disease.     

Use of the Given Patency System for the screening of patients at high risk for capsule retention

BACKGROUND: Capsule enteroscopy is a non-invasive diagnostic tool for the study of the small bowel. Due to the risk of capsule retention, capsule enteroscopy is contraindicated in patients with suspected small bowel strictures. The Given Patency Capsule is a disintegration time-controlled capsule developed to identify patients with strictures that may cause capsule enteroscopy retention. The presence of the patency capsule within the patient's body can be detected by a radio-frequency scanner. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate safety and usefulness of the patency capsule in preventing capsule retention in patients at high risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients were studied. Indications for patency capsule were: (A) Crohn's disease (18), (B) previous intestinal surgery (7), (C) previous obstruction (1), A+B (3), A+C (1), B+C (2). Patients were evaluated with the scanner at 72 h from ingestion. RESULTS: At 72 h, 24 patients had already excreted the intact capsule in the stool. Of these, two experienced abdominal pain during capsule passage. In the other eight patients, the scanner detected the presence of the patency capsule. Four of them excreted the capsule intact in the stool after 72-96 h, the remaining four never found the capsule in the stool. The 26 patients who excreted the patency capsule intact without experiencing abdominal pain were deemed eligible for the capsule enteroscopy procedure, which was performed uneventfully in the 25 who agreed to undergo the examination. CONCLUSIONS: The patency capsule is useful to identify, among patients at high risk, those who can be submitted to capsule enteroscopy without risks of capsule retention.     

Combined terminal ileoscopy and biopsy is superior to small bowel follow-through in detecting terminal ileal pathology

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared small bowel barium examination with ileoscopy in assessment of terminal ileal disease. Some suggest that ileoscopy is superior in detection of terminal ileal disease whereas others suggest similar disease detection rates for both techniques. AIMS: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if small bowel follow-through and ileoscopy with terminal ileum biopsy compare favourably at detecting pathology in the terminal ileum. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All colonoscopies with terminal ileoscopy performed over a 16-month period were reviewed. We determined which of these patients had also had small bowel follow-through studies within 2 weeks of colonoscopy. We compared the diagnoses of terminal ileum pathology using ileoscopy with terminal ileal biopsy versus small bowel follow-through. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had both terminal ileoscopy with biopsy and small bowel follow-through. In 19 patients, the terminal ileum was abnormal at ileoscopy and/or biopsy but normal at small bowel follow-through. In 27 patients, terminal ileum findings at small bowel follow-through and at ileoscopy and/or biopsy were compatible. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that examination of the terminal ileum by combined ileoscopy and biopsy may be superior to small bowel follow-through at detecting terminal ileal pathology. In our series, many patients received effective treatment that otherwise would not have been offered based on the small bowel follow-through results alone. Using combined ileoscopy and biopsy, microscopic inflammatory changes, otherwise missed without biopsy, can be detected. Retrograde ileoscopy is recommended in patients with a clinical history of organic diarrhoea and/or abdominal pain even in the presence of a normal small bowel follow-through.     

Patient burden and patient preference: Comparing magnetic resonance enteroclysis,capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy

Background and Aim: We aimed to prospectively determine patient burden and patient preference for magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known Crohn's disease (CD) or occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Methods: Consecutive consenting patients with CD or OGIB underwent magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy. Capsule endoscopy was only performed if magnetic resonance enteroclysis showed no high‐grade small bowel stenosis. Patient preference and burden was evaluated by means of standardized questionnaires at five moments in time. Results: From January 2007 until March 2009, 76 patients were included (M/F 31/45; mean age 46.9 years; range 20.0–78.4 years): 38 patients with OGIB and 38 with suspected or known CD. Seventeen patients did not undergo capsule endoscopy because of high‐grade stenosis. Ninety‐five percent (344/363) of the questionnaires were suitable for evaluation. Capsule endoscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy with respect to bowel preparation, swallowing of the capsule (compared to insertion of the tube/scope), burden of the entire examination, duration and accordance with the pre‐study information. Capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enteroclysis were significantly preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, and magnetic resonance enteroclysis was significantly preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination. Balloon‐assisted enteroscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for insertion of the scope and procedure duration. Pre‐ and post‐study the order of preference was capsule endoscopy, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy. Conclusion: Capsule endoscopy was preferred to magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy; it also had the lowest burden. Magnetic resonance enteroclysis was preferred over balloon‐assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination, and balloon‐assisted enteroscopy over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for scope insertion and study duration.     

Capsule and balloon endoscopy: When are they really needed in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases?

The evaluation of the small bowel in patients with suspected or established IBD is generally performed by radiologic techniques. Capsule endoscopy and balloon enteroscopy may offer additional advantages in the evaluation of small bowel inflammation in patients with suspected small bowel involvement but negative prior radiologic evaluation. This review summarizes the current clinical status of capsule and balloon enteroscopy in patients with suspected or established IBD.     

Wireless capsule video endoscopy：Three years of experience

AIM:To review and summerize the current literatue regarding M2A wireless capsule endoscopy.METHODS:Peer reviewed publications regarding the use of capsule endoscopy as well as our personal experience were reviewed.RESULTS:Review of the literature dearly showed that capsule endoscopy was superior th enteroscopy,small bowel follow through and computerized tomography in aptients with obscure qastrointestinal bleeding,iron deficiency anemia,or suspected Crohn‘s disease.It was very sensitive for the diagnosis of small bowel tumors and for survailance of small bowel pathology in patients with Gardner syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposeis syndrome.Its role in celiac disease and in patients with kmown Crohn‘s disease was currently being investigated.CONGLUSION:Capsule video endoscopy is a superior and more sensitive diagnostic tool than barium follow through,enteroscopy and entero-CT in establishing the diagnosis of many small bowel pathologyes.     

Investigation of the small bowel in gastrointestinal bleeding--enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy

The last frontier in luminal endoscopy has been conquered. Bleeding lesions in the small intestine can present a frustrating clinical problem, but recent advances have made investigating the small bowel easier and less invasive. Capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy are two new technologies that promise to lower the barrier to evaluation of the entire small intestine. Recent studies show that capsule endoscopy improves outcomes in patients who have OGIB. Although outcome studies regarding double balloon enteroscopy have not been performed, the opportunity to treat lesions throughout the small bowel without resorting to surgery is a tremendous advance. These improvements suggest that the corner may have been turned in the diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Perhaps to the next generation of gastroenterologists, small bowel bleeding will not be obscure.     

Double Balloon Enteroscopy Detects Small Bowel Mass Lesions Missed by Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Small bowel mass lesions (SBML) are a relatively common cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Their detection has been limited by the inability to endoscopically examine the entire small intestine. This has changed with the introduction of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) into clinical practice. STUDY AIM: To evaluate the detection of SBML by DBE and CE in patients with OGIB who were found to have SBML by DBE and underwent both procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing DBE for OGIB at seven North American tertiary centers was performed. Those patients who were found to have SBML as a cause of their OGIB were further analyzed. RESULTS: During an 18 month period, 183 patients underwent DBE for OGIB. A small bowel mass lesion was identified in 18 patients. Of these, 15 patients had prior CE. Capsule endoscopy identified the mass lesion in five patients; fresh luminal blood with no underlying lesion in seven patients, and non-specific erythema in three patients. Capsule endoscopy failed to identify all four cases of primary small bowel adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Double balloon enteroscopy detects small bowel mass lesions responsible for OGIB that are missed by CE. Additional endoscopic evaluation of the small bowel by DBE or intraoperative enteroscopy should be performed in patients with ongoing OGIB and negative or non-specific findings on CE.     

Advances in Small Bowel Imaging

The small intestine has been difficult to examine by traditional endoscopic and radiologic techniques. Within the past 10 years, advances have led to an explosion of technologies that facilitate examination of the entire small intestine. Wireless video capsule endoscopy, deep enteroscopy using balloon-assisted or spiral techniques, computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) enterography have facilitated the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of patients with small intestinal diseases. These technologies are complementary, each with its advantages and limitations. Capsule endoscopy provides a detailed view of the mucosal surface and has excellent patient acceptance, but does not allow therapeutics. Deep enteroscopy allows careful inspection of the mucosa and therapeutics, but is time consuming and invasive. Enterography (CT or MR) allows examination of the small bowel wall and surrounding structures. The initial best test for detecting small intestinal disease depends on clinical presentation and an astute differential diagnosis.     

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: role of videocapsule and double-balloon enteroscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE), which allows the non-invasive visualisation of mucosa throughout the entire small bowel, has revolutionised the exploration of small-bowel diseases, and particularly the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) after a negative initial evaluation, including gastroscopy and colonoscopy. CE has a high negative predictive value and a higher diagnostic yield than all other modalities, such as radiology (small-bowel X-rays or computed tomography scan) or push enteroscopy. CE may be the preferred initial diagnostic choice in OGIB because of its non-invasive quality and better tolerance. Double-balloon enteroscopy, also known as push-and-pull enteroscopy, has recently been developed. It has made it possible not only to explore the small bowel but also to carry out therapeutic interventions deep in the small bowel without the need for surgical laparotomy. This exploration should be considered as a second-line exploration for OGIB in patients with a positive finding on CE requiring endoscopic follow-up for histology or intervention, and in patients in whom suspicion of a small-bowel lesion is high despite a negative CE.     

Capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy （CE） is a simple, safe, non-invasive, reliable technique, well accepted and tolerated by the patients, which allows complete exploration of the small intestine. The advent of CE in 2000 has dramatically changed the diagnosis and management of many diseases of the small intestine, such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn＇s disease, small bowel tumors, polyposis syndromes, etc. CE has become the gold standard for the diagnosis of most diseases of the small bowel. Lately this technique has also been used for esophageal and colonic diseases.     

A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn's disease

OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) allows for direct evaluation of the small bowel mucosa in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). A number of studies have revealed significantly improved yield for CE over other modalities for the diagnosis of CD, but as sample sizes have been small, the true degree of benefit is uncertain. Additionally, it is not clear whether patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD and those with suspected recurrent disease are equally likely to benefit from CE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of CE compared with other modalities in symptomatic patients with suspected or established CD using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a recursive literature search of prospective studies comparing the yield of CE to other modalities in patients with suspected or established CD. Data on yield among various modalities were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Incremental yield (IY) (yield of CE--yield of comparative modality) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of CE over comparative modalities were calculated. Subanalyses of patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD and those with suspected recurrent disease were also performed. RESULTS: Nine studies (n = 250) compared the yield of CE with small bowel barium radiography for the diagnosis of CD. The yield for CE versus barium radiography for all patients was 63% and 23%, respectively (IY = 40%, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 28-51%). Four trials compared the yield of CE to colonoscopy with ileoscopy (n = 114). The yield for CE versus ileoscopy for all patients was 61% and 46%, respectively (IY = 15%, p= 0.02, 95% CI = 2-27%). Three studies compared the yield of CE to computed tomography (CT) enterography/CT enteroclysis (n = 93). The yield for CE versus CT for all patients was 69% and 30%, respectively (IY = 38%, p= 0.001, 95% CI = 15-60%). Two trials compared CE to push enteroscopy (IY = 38%, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 26-50%) and one trial compared CE to small bowel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (IY = 22%, p= 0.16, 95% CI =-9% to 53%). Subanalysis of patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD showed no statistically significant difference between the yield of CE and barium radiography (p= 0.09), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (p= 0.48), CT enterography (p= 0.07), or push enteroscopy (p= 0.51). Subanalysis of patients with established CD with suspected small bowel recurrence revealed a statistically significant difference in yield in favor of CE compared with all other modalities (barium radiography (p < 0.001), colonoscopy with ileoscopy (p= 0.002), CT enterography (p < 0.001), and push enteroscopy (p < 0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: In study populations, CE is superior to all other modalities for diagnosing non-stricturing small bowel CD, with a number needed to test (NNT) of 3 to yield one additional diagnosis of CD over small bowel barium radiography and NNT = 7 over colonoscopy with ileoscopy. These results are due to a highly significant IY with CE over all other modalities in patients with established non-stricturing CD being evaluated for a small bowel recurrence. While there was no significant difference seen between CE and alternate modalities for diagnosing small bowel CD in patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD, the trend toward significance for a number of modalities suggests the possibility of a type II error. Larger studies are needed to better establish the role of CE for diagnosing small bowel CD in patients with a suspected initial presentation of CD.     

Clinical utility, safety and tolerability of capsule endoscopy in urban Southeast Asian population

AIM: Capsule endoscopy has demonstrated its clinical utility in the evaluation of small bowel pathology in several Western studies. In this prospective study, we aimed to determine the clinical utility, safety and tolerability of capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected small bowel disease in an urban Southeast Asian population.METHODS: We used the given (M2A) capsule endoscopy system in 16 consecutive patients with suspected small bowel pathology. In 9 patients the indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, while in 6 patients it was to determine the extent of small bowel involvement in Crohn‘s disease. One patient underwent capsule endoscopy for evaluation of chronic abdominal pain. Patient‘‘s tolerabilityto the procedure was evaluated by standardized questionnaires and all patients were reviewed at one week to ensure that the capsule had been excreted without any adverse events.RESULTS: Abnormal findings were present in 8 patients (50 %). The cause of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding was determined in 5 out of 9 patients. Findings included 2 cases of angiodysplasia, 2 cases of jejunal ulcers and 1 case of both angiodysplasia and jejunal ulcer. One patient had smallbowel erosions and foci of erythema of doubtful significance. Ileal lesions were diagnosed in 2 out of 6 patients with Crohn‘‘s disease. Capsule endoscopy was well tolerated by allpatients. One patient with Crohn‘‘s disease had a complication of capsule retention due to terminal ileum stricture. Thecapsule eventually passed out spontaneously after 1 month. CONCLUSION: Our study, which represented the first Asian series, further confirms the diagnostic utility, safety and tolerability of wireless capsule endoscopy.     

Clinical application of video capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive imaging of the complete small bowel has become possible with the recently available video capsule endoscopy technique. The aim of this study was to review and assess the possibilities and limitations of the clinical application of video capsule endoscopy. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Video capsule endoscopy is a new promising technique with good to excellent visualization of the mucosa of the small bowel. It has a high diagnostic yield in patients with occult gastrointestinal blood loss (OGIB) and Crohn disease (CD). Several other indications need further study. Compared to small-bowel X-ray and push enteroscopy, diagnostic yield appears to be superior. Video capsule endoscopy is very well tolerated by patients. Its most important limitation is the impossibility of taking biopsies and therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSION: Video capsule endoscopy is a promising new diagnostic tool for small-bowel disease.     

Intraoperative enteroscopy in the management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding has long been a diagnostic challenge because of the relative inaccessibility of small bowel to standard endoscopic evaluation. Intraoperative enteroscopy indications have been reduced by the development of deep enteroscopy techniques and video capsule endoscopy. In light of the current advances, this review aimed at evaluating the intraoperative enteroscopy technical aspects, study results and an ongoing role for intraoperative enteroscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding management. Intraoperative enteroscopy allows complete small bowel exploration in 57–100% of cases. A bleeding source can be identified in 80% of cases. Main causes are vascular lesions (61%) and benign ulcers (19%). When a lesion is found, intraoperative enteroscopy allows successful and recurrence-free management of gastrointestinal bleeding in 76% of cases. The reported mortality is 5% and morbidity is 17%. The recurrence of bleeding is observed in 13–52% of cases. With the recent development of deep enteroscopy techniques, intraoperative enteroscopy remains indicated when small bowel lesions (i) have been identified by a preoperative work-up, (ii) cannot be definitively managed by angiographic embolization, endoscopic treatment or when surgery is required and (iii) cannot be localized by external examination during surgical explorations. Surgeons and endoscopists must exercise caution with intraoperative enteroscopy to avoid the use of a low yield, highly morbid procedure.     

Exploring the Small Bowel: Update on Deep Enteroscopy

Deep enteroscopy allows for the diagnosis and treatment of small bowel disorders that historically required operative intervention. There are a variety of endoscopic platforms using balloons and rotational overtubes to facilitate small bowel intubation and even allow for total enteroscopy. Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common indication for deep enteroscopy. By visualizing segments of the small bowel not possible through standard EGD or push enteroscopy, deep enteroscopy has an established high rate of identification and treatment of bleeding sources. In addition to obscure bleeding, other common indications include diagnosis and staging of Crohn’s disease, evaluation of findings on capsule endoscopy and investigation of possible small bowel tumors. Large endoscopy databases have shown deep enteroscopy to be not only effective but safe. Recent research has focused on comparing the diagnostic rates, efficacy, and total enteroscopy rates of the different endoscopic platforms.