4.4 Article

Retrieval of Retained Capsule Endoscopy at Small Bowel Stricture by Double-Balloon Endoscopy Significantly Decreases Surgical Treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 141-146

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000335

关键词

stricture; capsule endoscopy; small bowel; double-balloon endoscopy; foreign body removal; outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals: The aim is to elucidate the efficacy and safety of double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) retrieval from small bowel stricture and to follow the outcome of the stricture where the SBCE was entrapped. Background: The retention of SBCE is a serious adverse event and most retained capsules are retrieved by surgery. There is still no report analyzing the follow-up of patients with stricture after retrieval of entrapped SBCEs by DBE. Methods: This study was designed a retrospective cohort study. Subjects were 12 consecutive patients with small bowel stricture where retrieval of entrapped SBCE was attempted using DBE. Success rate of the SBCE retrieval by DBE, surgical rate of the small bowel stricture, adverse events of DBE, and outcomes in the follow-up period were evaluated. Results: Diagnoses were Crohn's disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-induced enteropathy, ischemic enteritis, and carcinoma in 8, 2, 1, and 1 patients, respectively. SBCE was successfully retrieved in 11 of the 12 patients (92%). No adverse events were encountered in all endoscopic procedures such as retrieval of SBCEs and dilation of the strictures. Nine of the 12 patients (75%) did not undergo surgical treatment for the stricture where SBCE was entrapped through the follow-up period (mean, 1675 +/- 847 d). Conclusions: Retrieval of SBCEs using DBE was safe, had a high success rate, and was useful to evaluate the need for surgery. Seventy-five percent of patients with small bowel stricture where the SBCE was entrapped did not require surgery through approximately 5 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据