4.7 Article

The risk of retention of the capsule endoscope in patients with known or suspected Crohn's disease

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 101, 期 10, 页码 2218-2222

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00761.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Capsule endoscopy (CE) allows visualization of the mucosa of the entire small bowel and is therefore a potentially important tool in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected Crohn's disease (CD). However, small bowel strictures, which are not uncommon in Crohn's, are considered to be a contraindication to CE for fear of capsule retention. Our goal was to determine the risk of capsule retention in patients with suspected or known CD. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 983 CE cases performed at three private gastroenterology practices between December 2000 and December 2003, and selected those with suspected or proven Crohn's. RESULTS: A total of 102 cases were identified in which CE was used in patients with suspected (N = 64) or known (N = 38) CD. Only one of 64 patients (1.6%) with suspected CD had a retained capsule. However, in five of 38 (13%) patients with known Crohn's, the capsule was retained proximal to a stricture. Of the five cases of retained capsules, three strictures were previously unknown. In four cases, the obstructing lesions were resected without complications, leading to complete resolution of the patient's underlying symptoms. One patient chose not to undergo surgery and has remained without an episode of small bowel obstruction for over 38 months. CONCLUSIONS: Capsule retention occurred in 13% (95% CI 5.6%-28%) of patients with known CD, but only in 1.6% (95% CI 0.2%-10%) with suspected Crohn's. A retained capsule may indicate unsuspected strictures in Crohn's that may require an unexpected, but therapeutic, surgical intervention. Patients and physicians should be aware of these potential risks when using CE in CD.

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

4.7
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