4.7 Article

Feasibility and safety of string, wireless capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 61, 期 6, 页码 741-746

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00322-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Capsule endoscopy is a major technological advancement in the visualization of the small bowell. Its utility in the evaluation of the esophagus is mainly limited by its rapid and unpredictable transmission, thus limiting the number of pictures of the esophagus, in particular, the distal esophagus. Methods: Strings were attached to the wireless capsule endoscopy device to allow its controlled movement up and down the esophagus. Microbiologic cultures of the capsule's surface after high-level disinfection were carried out after the procedure. At the time of recording, discomfort associated with the procedure was documented. Patient preference compared with conventional EGD was recorded. An independent endoscopist blinded to the EGD diagnoses assessed the diagnostic accuracy of pictures obtained. Observations: Fifty patients with Barrett's esophagus were enrolled: 28 with short-segment Barrett's and 22 with long-segment Barrett's. The procedure was safe (no strings were disrupted, and no capsule was lost), and it rendered negative microbiologic cultures after high-level disinfection. The mean recording time was 7.9 minutes; all patients with both short- and long-segment Barrett's esophagus were successfully identified. The difficulty/discomfort associated with swallowing the device, throat discomfort, gagging, moving the capsule (up and down and upon retrieval of the capsule) was none or minimal in 74%, 98%, 96%, 94%, and 76%, respectively. A single capsule was used in 24 studies, and the majority of patients (92%) preferred string-capsule endoscopy to EGD. Conclusions: String-capsule endoscopy was feasible, safe, and highly acceptable, and was preferred by patients and may prove to be more cost effective than screening EGD.

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