4.0 Article

Wireless capsule endoscopy in adolescents with familial adenomatous polyposis

期刊

TUMORI
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 40-44

出版社

WICHTIG PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000390

关键词

Adolescent; Familial adenomatous polyposis surveillance; Wireless capsule endoscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and background: Guidelines for surveillance in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) recommend mutation carriers to undergo periodic colorectal examination starting in the early teens. Performing colonoscopy in children may lead to complications. Wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) has been introduced recently to evaluate both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, and seems suitable as a first screening examination for adolescents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pros and cons of WCE. Methods: This was a retrospective review of a single institution database of adolescent patients with FAP identified through the Hereditary Colorectal Tumor Registry between 2007 and 2013. The main outcomes were identification of upper and lower gastrointestinal tract polyps, tolerance of the examination, and number and size of polyps. Results: Of 46 adolescent patients with FAP, 14 (30.4%) patients carrying adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC) mutation, 6 male and 8 female, age (median, range) 12 (10-17) years, body mass index 19 (13-24), underwent WCE as first screening examination. The examination was completed in 13 patients (93.3%). Wireless capsule endoscopy identified the duodenal papilla in 4 patients and colonic and rectal polyps in all 13 patients. In 7 patients, fewer than 25 polyps were identified. No complications were recorded related to the use of the video capsule. Conclusions: Wireless capsule endoscopy is feasible and well-tolerated as a first screening examination in adolescent patients. It cannot be used as alternative to the colonoscopy, but could improve compliance with colonoscopy, and increase early adherence to a surveillance program.

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

4.0
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