The spiral enteroscopy training initiative: results of a prospective study evaluating the Discovery SB overtube device during small bowel enteroscopy (with video)

Motorized Power Spiral Enteroscopy (MSE): Is Routine Bougienage of the Upper Esophageal Sphincter (UES) Necessary?

Introduction Wire-guided bougienage of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) was performed routinely before per-oral motorized power spiral enteroscopy (MSE). In the present study, we aimed to answer the clinical question of whether routine bougienage of UES is required. Methods This was a retrospective study that included 20 patients who underwent antegrade spiral enteroscopy for various indications. The feasibility and safety of anterograde MSE without prior bougie dilatation of the upper esophageal sphincter were assessed. The technical success rate (TSR), diagnostic yield, and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. Results In 16 out of the 20 patients, a spiral enteroscope was taken directly across UES into the esophagus without a prior bougie dilatation. The spiral enteroscope could not be negotiated across UES only in one patient, and bougie dilatation was done. The technical success rate was 100%. The diagnostic yield was 80%. Four patients reported AEs. Conclusions MSE had a good technical success rate and diagnostic yield. Routine dilatation of the UES before the procedure may be unnecessary.

Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy and Enteroscopy: A Shoulder-to-Shoulder Race

Traditional methods have their limitations when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of the small bowel, an area historically seen as the "black box" of the gastrointestinal tract. This is where capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy have stepped in, offering a remarkable synergy that transcends the sum of their individual capabilities. From their introduction, small bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have consistently evolved and improved, both on their own and interdependently. Each technique's history may be told as a success story, and their interaction has revolutionized the approach to the small bowel. Both have advantages that could be ideally combined into a perfect technique: safe, non-invasive, and capable of examining the entire small bowel, taking biopsies, and applying therapeutical interventions. Until the realization of this perfect tool becomes a reality, the key for an optimal approach lies in the right selection of exploration method. In this article, we embark on a journey through the intertwined development of capsule endoscopy and enteroscopy, exploring the origins, technological advancements, clinical applications, and evolving inquiries that have continually reshaped the landscape of small bowel imaging.

Performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The introduction of motorized spiral enteroscopy (mSE) into clinical practice holds diagnostic and therapeutic potential for small-bowel investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the performance of this modality in diagnosing and treating small-bowel lesions.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were performed through September 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as the identification of a lesion relative to the indication. Secondary outcomes were successful therapeutic manipulation, total enteroscopy rate (examination from the duodenojejunal flexion to the cecum), technical success (passage from the ligament of Treitz or ileocecal valve for anterograde and retrograde approach, respectively), and adverse event rates. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and the results are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2022, 9 studies (959 patients; 42% women; mean age >45 years; 474 patients [49.4%] investigated for mid-GI bleeding/anemia) were considered eligible and included in analysis. The diagnostic success rate of mSE was 78% (95% CI, 72-84; I2 = 78.3%). Considering secondary outcomes, total enteroscopy was attempted in 460 cases and completed with a rate of 51% (95% CI, 30-72; I2 = 96.2%), whereas therapeutic interventions were successful in 98% of cases (95% CI, 96-100; I2 = 79.8%) where attempted. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI, 94-97; I2 = 1.5%) for anterograde and 97% (95% CI, 94-100; I2 = 38.6%) for retrograde approaches, respectively. Finally, the incidence of adverse events was 17% (95% CI, 13-21; I2 = 65.1%), albeit most were minor adverse events (16%; 95% CI, 11-20; I2 = 67.2%) versus major adverse events (1%; 95% CI, 0-1; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

mSE provides high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic success with a low prevalence of severe adverse events.

Motorized spiral enteroscopy versus double-balloon enteroscopy: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has been postulated to ease the complexities of the standard-of-care double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). However, there are no comparative studies between MSE and DBE. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes and safety between MSE and DBE.

METHODS

In this case-matched study, patients were matched 1:2 (MSE/DBE) by age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology scores. Thirty-one patients who underwent MSE were compared with 62 patients who underwent DBE from 2014 to 2022. Our primary outcomes were to compare the technical and diagnostic success rates between DBE and MSE. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the therapeutic success and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

The main indications for enteroscopy were suspected GI bleeding and positive radiologic findings. Prior abdominal surgery was reported in 35.5% and 22.6% of DBE and MSE patients, respectively. Most were antegrade enteroscopy (71%). We found no significant difference in the technical success (DBE 98.4% vs MSE 96.8%, P = .62), diagnostic success (DBE 66.1% vs MSE 54.8%, P = .25), and therapeutic success rates (DBE 62.8% vs MSE 52.9%, P = .62) between the groups. Adverse events occurred in 1 DBE and 11 MSE patients. Most were minor (n = 10, 25.6%). Two patients (5.1%) in the MSE group sustained deep lacerations in the proximal esophagus requiring hospitalization. One developed ileal perforation after MSE needing surgical repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients requiring enteroscopy, the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of MSE is similar to DBE. An increased frequency of adverse events was observed with MSE. There are some restrictions in the indication because of the design of MSE.

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Safety and efficacy of the novel motorized power spiral enteroscopy: A single-center experience

Objective

Evaluation and management of small bowel disorders have always been challenging due to the limitations of the existing technology. Motorized power spiral enteroscopy (PSE) is an innovative new technique that offers easier, faster, and more complete small bowel evaluation with the ability to perform therapeutics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PSE in various indications.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients, who underwent PSE at a tertiary care center. Primary outcome measures were technical success rate, pan-enteroscopy rate, diagnostic and therapeutic yield, and the secondary outcomes measures were the depth of maximal insertion, median insertion time, and adverse events.

Results

Fifty-four patients (mean age of 49.38 ± 16.26 years) underwent PSE for small bowel evaluation. Technical success rate was 95.55% (antegrade route) and 93.10% (retrograde route).  Pan-enteroscopy rate is 46.29% and antegrade enteroscopy to the cecum was achieved in eight patients.  Overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields were 85.18% and 30.76%, respectively. The most common findings were ulcero-stricturing lesions (51.92%) followed by vascular lesions (9.61%). The most common histopathologic diagnosis was Crohn's disease in 29.62%. Median depth of maximal insertion was 400 cm (range 150-550 cm; antegrade route) and 180 cm (range 50-350 cm; retrograde route). The median insertion time to depth of maximal insertion was 70 min (range 30-110 min; antegrade route) and 45 min (range 20-70 min; retrograde route).  PSE-associated major adverse events occurred in one patient and minor adverse events were seen in 48.14%.

Conclusion

PSE is a safe and effective modality for the evaluation of small bowel disorders with a high diagnostic yield.

The Evolution of Device-Assisted Enteroscopy: From Sonde Enteroscopy to Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy

The introduction of capsule endoscopy in 2001 opened the last "black box" of the gastrointestinal tract enabling complete visualization of the small bowel. Since then, numerous new developments in the field of deep enteroscopy have emerged expanding the diagnostic and therapeutic armamentarium against small bowel diseases. The ability to achieve total enteroscopy and visualize the entire small bowel remains the holy grail in enteroscopy. Our journey in the small bowel started historically with sonde type enteroscopy and ropeway enteroscopy. Currently, double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy, and spiral enteroscopy are available in clinical practice. Recently, a novel motorized enteroscope has been described with the potential to shorten procedure time and allow for total enteroscopy in one session. In this review, we will present an overview of the currently available techniques, indications, diagnostic yield, and complications of device-assisted enteroscopy.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Diagnostic yield and therapeutic impact of novel motorized spiral enteroscopy in small-bowel disorders: a single-center, real-world experience from a tertiary care hospital (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Novel motorized spiral enteroscopy (NMSE) is a recent advancement in the field of enteroscopy and offers multiple features, including self-propulsion, better irrigation, and shorter enteroscope length with a larger channel. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy in terms of diagnostic yield and therapeutic success of NMSE in patients undergoing enteroscopy by antegrade and/or retrograde approaches for suspected small-bowel disease.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with symptomatic small-bowel disease who underwent enteroscopy over a 6-month period. Diagnostic yield, therapeutic success, total enteroscopy rate (TER), technical success, total procedural time, depth of maximal insertion, and adverse events related to the NMSE procedure were noted.

RESULTS

Of 61 patients (mean age, 45.67 ± 15.37 years; 43 men) included for NMSE, 57 patients underwent successful enteroscopy with a technical success of 93.4%. The overall diagnostic yield was 65.5% (95% confidence interval, 52.31-77.27) and 70.1% (95% confidence interval, 56.60-81.57) in patients who underwent successful NMSE; TER was 60.6%: 31.1% by the antegrade approach and 29.5% by a combined antegrade and retrograde approach. Depth of maximal insertion and procedural time was of 465 cm (range, 100-650) and 40 minutes (range, 25-60), respectively, by the antegrade approach and 140 cm (range, 50-200) and 35 minutes (range, 30-60) by the retrograde route. Lesions were classified as inflammatory (n = 25), vascular (n = 10), and mass (n = 4). Biopsy specimens were obtained in 50.8% subjects, and 23% patients underwent therapeutic procedures. No major adverse events were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

NMSE is a promising technology, showing high efficacy as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the management of otherwise difficult-to-treat small-bowel disease.

Single-balloon and spiral enteroscopy may have similar diagnostic and therapeutic yields to double-balloon enteroscopy: Results from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Double-balloon, single-balloon, and spiral enteroscopy (DBE, SBE, and SE) have revolutionized the management of intestinal diseases. However, evidence about efficacies of these methods is lacking. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes among DBE, SBE, and SE.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials and prospective studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese CQVIP database. Studies referencing the comparison of at least two of these three methods were included. Primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Other outcomes were therapeutic yield, total enteroscopy, examination time, time to maximum insertion, and depth of maximal insertion (DMI).

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 727 patients were identified: DBE vs SE (n = 6), DBE vs SBE (n = 4), and SBE vs SE (n = 1). The diagnostic and therapeutic yields did not differ significantly when comparing DBE with SE [odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-2.08; OR = 1.17, 95%CI: 0.61-2.23] and DBE with SBE (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.55-1.33; OR = 1.71, 95%CI: 0.64 - 4.60). Total enteroscopy, examination time, time to maximum insertion, and DMI were similar between SBE and DBE. DBE was superior to SE with regard to DMI [mean difference (MD) = 36.76, 95%CI: 5.09-68.43], with longer time to maximum insertion (MD = 15.14, 95%CI: 12-18.27) and examination time (MD = 12.98, 95%CI: 9.57-16.38).

CONCLUSION

DBE and SBE have similar clinical outcomes. Compared with DBE, SE seems to have similar diagnostic and therapeutic yields, but shorter procedural time in cost of less depth of insertion. SE needs further evaluation vs SBE. DBE is recommended for complete enteroscopy.

Device-assisted enteroscopy training. A rapid review

Device-assisted enteroscopy is currently lacking a validated training model, in contrast to the other major technique used for the study of the small bowel, namely capsule endoscopy. Training should be based on defining and achieving competency for the acquisition of the knowledge and skills required to perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner. The need for training is clear, since the technique is considered an advanced endoscopy form that requires maneuvers that differ from the usual ones that must be learned, in addition to specific equipment. Therefore, the ideal candidates for this training include professionals with accredited experience in therapeutic digestive endoscopy. Amongst the recommendations issued regarding device-assisted enteroscopy training, the estimation of small-bowel insertion depth and the choice of the examination route, whether oral or anal, should be highlighted. Learning curve descriptions have the limitation of being explorer-dependent with no consensus on the parameter that should be selected to establish a correct learning curve in enteroscopy. The most commonly used parameter is insertion depth. The few training models that have been proposed recommend using a highly useful tool, namely simulators and to start practicing under expert guidance. Based on the variability of published data, an experienced endoscopist may perform enteroscopy in a safe and effective manner after 5 to 35 training procedures. Although reaching the expert level requires prolonged clinical practice with exposure to the various disorders of the small bowel.

New Devices for Endoscopic Treatments in Gastroenterology: A Narrative Review

Endoscopy is in a period of continuous innovations in terms of image quality, endoscopes, post-processing software and lastly, application of Artificial Intelligence. Therapeutic boundaries have expanded, widening the grey zone between endoscopy and surgery, and increasing endoscopic approaches in clinical scenarios where, until a few years ago, surgery was the only option. New scopes and accessories have made it easier to access critical areas such as the biliary tree and the small bowel intestine. In the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary endoscopy (HPB), it is now possible to directly access the biliary ducts or cystic lesions though dedicated stents and scopes, rather than having to rely only on fluoroscopy and ultrasound, increasing the diagnostic and therapeutic options by applying a three-dimensional approach. This narrative review will give an overview of some of the most relevant emerging fields in luminal and HPB endoscopy, highlighting advantages and main limitations of the techniques, and providing considerations for future development.

Balloon enteroscopy versus spiral enteroscopy for small-bowel disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Two novel enteroscopic procedures, balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy, have revolutionized the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to small-bowel disorders. These disorders that historically required surgical interventions are now investigated and managed nonsurgically. Only a few weakly powered studies have compared the outcomes of spiral enteroscopy and balloon enteroscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for all studies published up to January 12, 2017 comparing the efficacy and safety of balloon enteroscopy (single or double) and spiral enteroscopy. Primary outcomes of interest were diagnostic and therapeutic success rates. Other outcomes included procedure length, depth of maximal insertion (DMI), rate of complete enteroscopy, and adverse events. We calculated Odds ratios (ORs) for categorical variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to analyze the data. Fixed and random effect models were used for <50% heterogeneity and >50% heterogeneity, respectively.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. A total of 615 procedures were analyzed, which included 394 balloon enteroscopy and 221 spiral enteroscopy procedures. There were no significant differences in diagnostic and therapeutic success rates (OR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], .86-1.88; P = .22; and OR, 1.23; 95% CI, .82-1.84; P = .32, respectively) between the 2 procedures. Similarly, DMI was not significantly different between the 2 groups (MD, 26.29; 95% CI, 20.92-73.49; P = .28). However, the procedure time was significantly shorter for the spiral enteroscopy group compared with the balloon enteroscopy group (MD, 11.26; 95% CI, 2.72-19.79; P = .010). A subgroup analysis comparing double balloon enteroscopy with spiral enteroscopy yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Both procedures achieved similar diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes and with similar depth of insertion. Spiral enteroscopy has the benefit of shorter procedural time.

Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy in Irritable Bowel Disease

In approximately one-third of Crohn's disease patients, the disease is confined to the small bowel, inaccessible to the reach of standard endoscopy. Thorough and complete evaluation of the small bowel is crucial in such patients for the initial diagnosis, prognostication, and disease monitoring. Video capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have revolutionized the ability to visualize the small-bowel mucosa. This article reviews the literature pertaining to the use of capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy in established Crohn's disease, including the major indications, applications, and safety issues.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Enteroscopy

Noninvasive imaging with CT and magnetic resonance enterography or direct visualization with wireless capsule endoscopy can provide valuable diagnostic information and direct therapy. Enteroscopy technology and techniques have evolved significantly and allow diagnosis and therapy deep within the small bowel, previously attainable only with intraoperative enteroscopy. Push enteroscopy, readily available in most endoscopy units, plays an important role in the evaluation and management of lesions located up to the proximal jejunum. Currently available device-assisted enteroscopy systems, DBE, SBE, and spiral enteroscopy each have their technical nuances, clinical advantages, and limitations. Newer, on-demand enteroscopy systems appear promising, but further studies are needed. Despite slight differences in parameters such as procedural times, depths of insertion, and rates of complete enteroscopy, the overall clinical outcomes with all overtube-assisted systems appear to be similar. Endoscopists should therefore master the enteroscopy technology based on institutional availability and their level of technical expertise.

A prospective comparison of performance during back-to-back, anterograde manual spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Spiral enteroscopy is a recently introduced technology alternative to balloon-assisted enteroscopy for examination of the small bowel.

AIM

To compare small bowel insertion depths and procedure duration by spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy performed in the same cohort of patients, in immediate succession, using the same method of insertion depth estimation.

METHODS

A prospective, back-to-back comparative study was performed in 15 patients. Spiral enteroscopy procedures were performed first and a tattoo was placed to mark the most distal point.

RESULTS

Double-balloon enteroscopy passed the tattoo placed at spiral enteroscopy in 14/15 cases (93%). Median insertion depths for double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy were 265cm and 175cm, respectively (P=0.004). Median time to achieve maximal depth of insertion was significantly shorter for spiral enteroscopy compared with double-balloon enteroscopy (24min vs. 45min, respectively; P=0.0005). However, in 14 patients no differences were found in median time to reach the same insertion depth (P=0.28).

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon enteroscopy achieved significantly greater small bowel insertion depth than spiral enteroscopy. Although overall double-balloon enteroscopy procedure duration was longer, the time taken to reach the same small bowel insertion depth by both spiral enteroscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy was similar.

Impact of balloon-assisted enteroscopy on the diagnosis and management of suspected and established small-bowel Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of recently developed balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in small-bowel Crohn's disease (CD) is not well established. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical impact of BAE on patients with suspected and established small-bowel CD.

METHODS

This study included 22 patients (group A) with suspected small-bowel CD and 43 patients (group B) with established small-bowel CD with or without previous surgery, who underwent BAE, in a prospective BAE registry of a US academic medical institution. All underwent abdominal imaging studies including computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) enterography before BAE. The main outcome measurements were diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 78 BAE procedures were carried out in 65 patients. In group A (n = 22, 25 BAE procedures), enteroscopy led to a diagnosis of CD in six patients (27.3 %). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related enteropathy was diagnosed in three patients (13.6 %), whereas no lesions were found in the remaining 13 patients. In group B (n = 43, 53 BAE procedures) enteroscopy revealed active intestinal inflammation with ulcers and/or luminal stenosis in 18 patients (41.9 %), which led to a change and escalation of medical therapy. Five patients without active ulcers underwent successful dilation of small-bowel strictures with resulting resolution of obstructive symptoms. Of the 78 BAE procedures, two patients (2.6 %) had bleeding complications which were successfully treated conservatively. One patient (1.3 %) underwent surgery due to procedure-related perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of BAE may help improve management in patients with suspected and established small-bowel CD.

Enteroscopy in small bowel Crohn’s disease: A review

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract resulting in inflammation, stricturing and fistulae secondary to transmural inflammation. Diagnosis relies on clinical history, abnormal laboratory parameters, characteristic radiologic and endoscopic changes within the gastrointestinal tract and most importantly a supportive histology. The article is intended mainly for the general gastroenterologist and for other interested physicians. Management of small bowel CD has been suboptimal and limited due to the inaccessibility of the small bowel. Enteroscopy has had a significant renaissance recently, thereby extending the reach of the endoscopist, aiding diagnosis and enabling therapeutic interventions in the small bowel. Radiologic imaging is used as the first line modality to visualise the small bowel. If the clinical suspicion is high, wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is used to rule out superficial and early disease, despite the above investigations being normal. This is followed by push enteroscopy or device assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as is appropriate. This approach has been found to be the most cost effective and least invasive. DAE includes balloon-assisted enteroscopy, [double balloon enteroscopy (DBE), single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and more recently spiral enteroscopy (SE)]. This review is not going to cover the various other indications of enteroscopy, radiological small bowel investigations nor WCE and limited only to enteroscopy in small bowel Crohn’s. These excluded topics already have comprehensive reviews. Evidence available from randomized controlled trials comparing the various modalities is limited and at best regarded as Grade C or D (based on expert opinion). The evidence suggests that all three DAE modalities have comparable insertion depths, diagnostic and therapeutic efficacies and complication rates, though most favour DBE due to higher rates of total enteroscopy. SE is quicker than DBE, but lower complete enteroscopy rates. SBE has quicker procedural times and is evolving but the least available DAE today. Larger prospective randomised controlled trial’s in the future could help us understand some unanswered areas including the role of BAE in small bowel screening and comparative studies between the main types of enteroscopy in small bowel CD.

Deep enteroscopy: which technique will survive?

The advent of deep enteroscopy (DE) has dramatically changed diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to small bowel diseases. Unlike capsule endoscopy, which is unable to obtain biopsies or treat a disease, DE techniques have diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) was introduced in 2001, and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and spiral enteroscopy (SE) were subsequently developed for small bowel investigation. In published reports comparing these different enteroscopy techniques, most comparative parameters (depth of insertion, complications, learning curve, diagnostic yield, and therapeutic yield) were comparable among DBE, SBE, and SE. However, the procedure duration appears to be shorter for SE than for DBE and SBE. The rate of complete enteroscopy is clearly superior for DBE, compared with SE and SBE. Because these results do not indicate an increase in diagnostic or therapeutic yield, the clinical impact of complete enteroscopy remains controversial. According to previous studies, the three DE methods seem to be equally effective and safe in the clinical setting. Although larger randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the procedural characteristics and clinical impact, the selection of an enteroscopic technique should be based on availability and the endoscopist's experience.

Feasibility of spiral enteroscopy in Japanese patients: study in two tertiary hospitals

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Despite recent advances in enteroscopy, such as balloon enteroscopy, accessing the small intestine remains challenging. Spiral enteroscopy is a novel technique in which an endoscope is fitted with a rotating overtube that has a soft spiral fin at the tip. Whereas spiral enteroscopy is beginning to be carried out in Western countries, it is not common in many Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of spiral enteroscopy in Japanese patients.

METHODS

We prospectively conducted spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known small bowel disease. All procedures were carried out using a spiral overtube. The main outcome measurements of the study were diagnosis rate, endoscopic intervention rate, and complication rate.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients underwent spiral enteroscopy. Spiral enteroscopy diagnosed 16 patients (50%) with small intestinal lesions, including six malignant lymphomas (19%), three erosions or ulcers (9%), three polyps (9%), two angioectasias (6%), one carcinoma (3%), and one submucosal tumor (3%). Additionally, four patients underwent endoscopic interventions (13%). Mallory-Weiss syndrome occurred in one patient (3%). No perforation occurred in any patient (0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial experience of spiral enteroscopy suggests that it can be introduced safely, but it is relatively invasive and technically demanding. More experience is needed to conduct spiral enteroscopy easily and safely.

Multicenter comparison of double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Spiral enteroscopy is a novel technique for small bowel exploration. The aim of this study is to compare double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected small bowel lesions.

METHODS

Patients with suspected small bowel lesion diagnosed by capsule endoscopy were prospectively included between September 2009 and December 2010 in five tertiary-care academic medical centers.

RESULTS

After capsule endoscopy, 191 double-balloon enteroscopy and 50 spiral enteroscopies were performed. Indications were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in 194 (80%) of cases. Lesions detected by capsule endoscopy were mainly angioectasia. Double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy resulted in finding one or more lesions in 70% and 75% of cases, respectively. The mean diagnosis procedure time and the average small bowel explored length during double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy were, respectively, 60 min (45-80) and 55 min (45-80) (P=0.74), and 200 cm (150-300) and 220 cm (200-300) (P=0.13). Treatment during double-balloon and spiral enteroscopy was possible in 66% and 70% of cases, respectively. There was no significant major procedure-related complication.

CONCLUSION

Spiral enteroscopy appears as safe as double-balloon enteroscopy for small bowel exploration with a similar diagnostic and therapeutic yield. Comparison between the two procedures in terms of duration and length of small bowel explored is slightly in favor of spiral enteroscopy but not significantly.

Evaluation of the small bowel in inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn's disease is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can affect the entire GI tract, and adequate visualization of the small bowel is imperative for both diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography enterography have gradually replaced barium-based studies. Magnetic resonance enterography has the distinct advantage of avoiding ionizing radiation to which many patients with IBD are overexposed. Endoscopy-based techniques, including capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy, allow direct visualization of the small bowel mucosa. Deep enteroscopy has the additional benefit of allowing sampling of the mucosa for histological analysis. Small intestine contrast ultrasound is rapidly gaining credence as an excellent, radiation-free imaging technique, but is not available in all countries. Other imaging modalities, such as positron emission tomography and leucocyte scintigraphy, continue to be studied and may have a role in specific circumstances. This review summarizes the evidence for the various techniques for evaluating the small bowel in IBD.

Prospective, randomized, single-center trial comparing double-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel disorders

BACKGROUND

Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is an established method in diagnostic and therapeutic small-bowel enteroscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Spiral enteroscopy (SE) appears to be a promising new technique. A randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare both methods.

DESIGN

Randomized, prospective study.

SETTING

Single tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Between September 2009 and March 2011, 26 patients with suspected mid-GI disorders completed the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to DBE or SE. The oral examination was conducted first, with the deepest point reached being marked with India ink. An additional anal examination followed the day after, with the aim of reaching the ink mark.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of complete enteroscopies achieved.

RESULTS

The rate of complete enteroscopies with DBE was 12 times the rate achieved with SE (8% in the SE group and 92% in the DBE group; P = .002). With regard to the secondary study criteria, much longer examination times but greater depths of insertion were associated with DBE. There were no statistically significant differences in the diagnostic or therapeutic outcomes between the SE and DBE groups (diagnostic yield, P = .428; therapeutic yield, P = 1.0; Fisher exact test). One perforation occurred during an anal examination as a relevant adverse event in SE.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study, small sample size.

CONCLUSION

SE does not represent an alternative to DBE with regard to the depth of insertion or the rate of complete enteroscopies achieved. However, SE is advantageous in that it involves significantly shorter examination times. Further technical improvements will be necessary before SE can compete with DBE for complete enteroscopies.

Current status of device-assisted enteroscopy: Technical matters, indication, limits and complications

Enteroscopy, defined as direct visualization of the small bowel with the use of a fiberoptic or capsule endoscopy, has progressed considerably over the past several years. The need for endoscopic access to improve diagnosis and treatment of small bowel disease has led to the development of novel technologies one of which is non-invasive, the video capsule, and a type of invasive technique, the device-assisted enteroscopy. In particular, the device-assisted enteroscopy consists then of three different types of instruments all able to allow, in skilled hands, to display partially or throughout its extension (if necessary) the small intestine. Newer devices, double balloon, single balloon and spiral endoscopy, are just entering clinical use. The aim of this article is to review recent advances in small bowel enteroscopy, focusing on indications, modifications to improve imaging and techniques, pitfalls, and clinical applications of the new instruments. With new technologies, the trials and tribulations of learning new endoscopic skills and determining their role in the diagnosis and treatment of small bowel disease come. Identification of small bowel lesions has dramatically improved. Studies are underway to determine the best strategy to apply new enteroscopy technologies for the diagnosis and management of small bowel disease, particularly obscure bleeding. Vascular malformations such as angiectasis and small bowel neoplasms as adenocarcinoma or gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Complete enteroscopy of the small bowel is now possible. However, because of the length of the small bowel, endoscopic examination and therapeutic maneuvers require significant skill, radiological assistance, the use of deep sedation with the assistance of the anesthetist. Prospective randomized studies are needed to guide diagnostic testing and therapy with these new endoscopic techniques.

Prospective evaluation of the long-term outcomes after deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding

BACKGROUND

Spiral enteroscopy can be safe and effective in the short term for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding, but long-term data are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term clinical outcomes after deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy performed for obscure GI bleeding.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic referral center.

PATIENTS

This study included 78 patients who underwent antegrade spiral enteroscopy for evaluation of obscure GI bleeding.

INTERVENTION

Diagnostic spiral enteroscopy with hemostatic therapeutic maneuvers applied as indicated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Postprocedure evidence of recurrent overt GI bleeding, blood transfusion requirements, need for iron supplementation, serum hemoglobin values, and the need for additional therapeutic procedures.

RESULTS

Long-term follow-up data (mean [± standard deviation] 25.3 ± 7.5 months; range 12.9-38.8 months) were obtained in 61 patients (78%). Among those with long-term follow-up data, overt bleeding before spiral enteroscopy was present in 62%, compared with 26% in the follow-up period (P < .0001). The mean (± SD) hemoglobin value increased from 10.6 ± 1.8 to 12.6 ± 1.9 g/dL (P < .0001). Blood transfusion requirements decreased by a mean of 4.19 units per patient (P = .0002), and the need for iron supplementation (P = .0487) and additional procedures (P < .0001) decreased in the follow-up period. There were 8 adverse events (9%) (7 mild, 1 moderate).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study, intervention bias.

CONCLUSION

In patients with obscure GI bleeding, deep small-bowel spiral enteroscopy is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of overt bleeding. An increase in hemoglobin values along with a decrease in blood transfusion requirement, need for iron supplementation, and need for additional therapeutic procedures were found over long-term follow-up. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00861263.).

Antegrade is more effective than retrograde enteroscopy for evaluation and management of suspected small-bowel disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Antegrade and retrograde enteroscopy are useful for evaluating the proximal and distal small bowel, respectively. We compared the diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and complications of antegrade and retrograde enteroscopy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent small-bowel enteroscopy at our institution from January 2008 to August 2009. All enteroscopies were performed using single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE), double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), or spiral enteroscopy (SE). A total of 250 enteroscopies were performed; 182 were antegrade (91 SBE, 52 DBE, and 39 SE) and 68 were retrograde (23 SBE, 37 DBE, and 8 SE). The mean age of the patients was 61.5 ± 15.8 years.

RESULTS

The most common indication for small-bowel endoscopy was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 83). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for antegrade than retrograde enteroscopy (63.7% vs 39.7%; P < .001). Antegrade procedures were of shorter duration than retrograde enteroscopy (44.3 ± 22.0 vs 58.9 ± 29.7 min; P < .001), and the mean depth of maximal insertion was significantly greater with antegrade endoscopy (231.8 ± 122.1 vs 103.4 ± 102.8 cm; P < .001). The therapeutic yield also was significantly higher for anterograde enteroscopy than retrograde enteroscopy (55.5% vs 44.1%; P < .001). There were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Antegrade enteroscopy appears to provide a higher diagnostic and therapeutic yield than retrograde enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel disease.

Outcomes research in gastroenterology and endoscopy

Although the field of outcomes research has received increased attention in recent years, there is still considerable uncertainty and confusion about what is “outcomes research”. The following editorial is designed to provide an overview on this topic, illustrate specific examples of outcomes research in clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy, and discuss its importance as a whole. In this article, we review the definition and specific goals of outcomes research. We outline the difference between traditional clinical research and outcomes research and discuss the benefits and limitations of outcomes research. We summarize the types of outcomes studies and methods utilized for outcomes assessment, and give specific examples of the impact of outcomes studies in the field of gastroenterology and endoscopy.

Spiral enteroscopy: prime time or for the happy few?

Spiral enteroscopy is the newest of the deep enteroscopy techniques. The current technique employs an overtube with a raised spiral at the distal end to pleat the small intestine and achieve deep small bowel intubation. Although spiral enteroscopy is a novel technique, the learning curve is comparable to the balloon enteroscopy techniques. There is some evidence of improved speed of spiral enteroscopy procedures with superior control compared to the balloon endoscopy technologies. Altered surgical anatomy deep enteroscopy has been shown to have similar safety and efficacy to competitive technologies, particularly in cases of Roux-en-Y ERCP cases. Spiral enterosopy is safe and effective for deep small bowel enteroscopy and diagnostic yield and therapeutic yields are similar to alternate technologies. There are bright future applications of the technology with enteroscopes and an integrated spiral. Spiral enteroscopy is an advanced technique that can be performed by any skilled endoscopist.

Initial design of a novel suction enteroscope for endoscopic locomotion in the small bowel (with video)

BACKGROUND

The upper GI tract and the colon are readily accessible endoscopically, but the small intestine is relatively difficult to evaluate.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of using suction as a means of locomotion and to assess the initial design of a suction enteroscope.

DESIGN

Feasibility study.

SETTING

Animal laboratory.

INTERVENTION

Various prototype suction devices designed in our laboratory were tested in swine small intestine in a force test station. For in vivo experiments in live anesthetized animals, two suction devices (1 fixed tip and 1 movable tip) were attached to the outside of the endoscope. By creating suction in the fixed tip, the endoscope was anchored while the movable tip was advanced. Suction was then applied to the extended tip to attach it to the distal bowel. Suction on the fixed tip was then released and the movable tip with suction pulled back, resulting in advancement of the endoscope. These steps were sequentially repeated. Intestinal segments were sent for pathologic assessment after testing.

RESULTS

Force generated ranged from 0.278 to 4.74 N with 64.3 to 88 kPa vacuum pressure. A linear relationship was seen between the pull force and vacuum pressures and tip surface area. During in vivo experiments, the endoscope was advanced in 25-cm segmental increments with sequential suction-and-release maneuvers. No significant bowel trauma was seen on pathology and necropsy.

LIMITATION

The enteroscopy system requires further refinement.

CONCLUSION

A novel suction enteroscope was designed and tested. Suction tip characteristics played a critical role impacting the functionality of this enteroscopy system.

Therapeutic management options for patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) is one of the most challenging disorders faced by gastroenterologists because of its evasive nature and difficulty in identifying the exact source of bleeding. Recent technological advances such as video capsule endoscopy and small bowel deep enteroscopy have revolutionized the diagnosis and management of patients with OGIB. In this paper, we review the various diagnostic and therapeutic options available for the management of patients with OGIB.

Spiral enteroscopy for therapeutic ERCP in patients with surgically altered anatomy: actual technique and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and associated procedures are difficult to perform in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Recently, balloon enteroscopy (BE) has made it easier to perform ERCP in these patients. However, BE-assisted ERCP is often technically demanding and time consuming.

METHODS

Spiral enteroscopy (SE), which has recently been developed, is a novel method of using a rotating overtube to pleat small bowel onto the enteroscope, thus advancing it through the lumen. We review the mechanism and efficacy of SE, especially in ERCP of patients with surgically altered anatomy, and report on the first patient to undergo ERCP using SE in Japan.

RESULTS

Spiral enteroscopy-assisted ERCP seems to be feasible and safe in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Additionally, SE-assisted ERCP appears to be easier to perform than other methods previously described and allows stable positioning of the enteroscope in order to perform delicate therapeutic maneuvers.

CONCLUSIONS

SE for ERCP is expected to be at least as useful as balloon enteroscopy in patients with surgically altered anatomy.

Initial experience with retrograde overtube-assisted enteroscopy using a spiral tip overtube

Overtube-assisted enteroscopy has expanded therapeutic options for the small bowel, but the effectiveness of spiral tip overtube-assisted endoscopy for retrograde small bowel evaluation is not known. This retrospective study reviewed the results of retrograde enteroscopy procedures among six consecutive patients. In these patients, cecal retroflexion was necessary to enter the terminal ileum when using an enteroscope, and 40 to 130 cm of the distal small bowel was intubated. The average procedure time was 52 minutes. The procedure was diagnostic in four patients, and successful endoscopic therapy was performed in three patients, including completion of a polypectomy at the ileocecal valve, resolution of a distal intestinal obstruction in a patient with cystic fibrosis, and a small bowel anastomotic stricture release. There were no procedure-related complications. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy with the spiral tip overtube allows for antegrade or retrograde evaluation of the small bowel. Pan-enteroscopy may become possible as the technique and equipment improve. The advantages of the different forms of overtube-assisted enteroscopy (spiral, single, and double balloon) need to be determined.

The role of endoscopic imaging of the small bowel in clinical practice

Enteroscopy, defined as direct visualization of the small bowel (SB) with the use of a fiberoptic or wireless endoscope, has progressed considerably over the past several years. Technological advancements in the field have facilitated endoscopic evaluation of the SB. This comprehensive clinical review summarizes the latest modalities available to aid gastroenterologists in exploring the SB for evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, tumors, inflammatory bowel disease, and celiac disease. Previous physical limitations in equipment that made a complete evaluation of the SB difficult have all but disappeared with the advent of capsule endoscopy, balloon-assisted enteroscopy, and spiral enteroscopy.

How to approach the small bowel with flexible enteroscopy

Nowadays, 5 nonsurgical flexible endoscopic techniques are available for small bowel endoscopy: push enteroscopy (PE), balloon-assisted enteroscopy using 2 balloons (double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]) or 1 balloon (single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE]), balloon-guided enteroscopy (BGE), and spiral enteroscopy (SE). PE is a cost-saving, easy, and fast procedure for the examination of the proximal jejunum, but for a deep small bowel endoscopy, the other flexible enteroscopic techniques are required. BGE does not play a considerable role in deep small bowel endoscopy. DBE is the oldest flexible enteroscopic technique. Actually, the balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) techniques with one balloon (SBE) or two balloons (DBE) are the mainly used techniques. DBE has become established throughout the world for diagnostic and therapeutic examinations of the small bowel and is now used universally in clinical routine work. DBE is still regarded as the gold standard nonsurgical procedure for deep small bowel endoscopy, because it provides the highest rates of complete enteroscopy, which becomes increasingly useful. The recently introduced SE technique represents a promising method but still needs technical improvement. Larger prospective studies on SE and prospective studies comparing the 3 systems (DBE, SBE, SE) are awaited before conclusive assessments can be made.

Spiral enteroscopy: a preliminary experience in Asian population

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In spite of recent developments in the field of enteroscopy the small bowel remains the challenging organ to access. The spiral enteroscopy is a novel technique using a special over-tube (Endo-Ease Discovery SB) system for deep intubation of the small bowel. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of spiral enteroscopy with an Olympus enteroscope (SIF Q 180) in an Asian subset of patients.

METHODS

Between January and March 2010, 11 patients underwent spiral enteroscopies. The indication for the procedure was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in five patients, Crohn's disease in two, malabsorbtion syndrome in two, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome in one and Osler Weber Rendu disease in one patient.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (five male and six female) mean age 41.6 years (range 21-62 years) underwent spiral enteroscopy. Spiral enteroscopy advancement was successful in all patients. The average depth of insertion was 249 cm (range 120-400 cm) past the ligament of Treitz, and the average time for the procedure was 27.8 min (range 20-32 min). The findings included ulcers (n = 3), polyps (n = 1), arteriovenous malformation (n = 2), ulcer with stricture (n = 1), and lymphangiectasia (n = 1). No major complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our initial experience with spiral enteroscopy shows that it is easy to perform, takes less time than balloon assisted enteroscopy and is relatively safe.

A comparative evaluation of single-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy for patients with mid-gut disorders

BACKGROUND

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and spiral enteroscopy (SE) are recently described device-assisted techniques in endoluminal evaluation of the small bowel. No studies comparing SBE and SE in patients with suspected small-bowel disorders have previously been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to compare SBE and SE in terms of diagnostic yield, procedure time, depth of maximal insertion, and complications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients at our institution undergoing anterograde SBE or SE between 2007 and 2009. Patients with altered anatomy or prior small-bowel surgery were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Deep enteroscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

During the study period, 92 patients underwent 105 procedures (52 SBE, 53 SE). The most common indication for small-bowel endoscopy was obscure GI bleeding (n = 42). The diagnostic yield was not statistically different between SBE and SE (59.6% and 43.4%, respectively, P = .12). The overall diagnostic yield in patients with obscure GI bleeding was 67%. There was no significant difference between mean SBE and SE procedure times (53 minutes [range 15-99 minutes] vs 47 minutes [range 20-125 minutes], respectively; P = .2). The mean depth of maximal insertion beyond the ligament of Treitz for SE was significantly higher than that for SBE (301 cm [range 175-400 cm] vs 222 cm [range 110-400 cm], respectively; P < .001). Perforation occurred in one SBE procedure.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design and nonstandardized gas insufflation.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report comparing SE and SBE. Although SE yielded greater depth of maximal insertion than SBE, both techniques had similar diagnostic yields and procedure times. In addition, both techniques were safe and were particularly useful in patients with obscure GI bleeding.

Prospective evaluation of gastroenterologist-guided, nurse-administered standard sedation for spiral deep small bowel enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Sedation of patients for deep small bowel enteroscopy presents unique challenges and is traditionally provided by anesthesiologists. No study has directly evaluated gastroenterologist-guided, nurse-administered sedation for deep enteroscopy. Further, no comparison exists between gastroenterologist-guided versus anesthesiologist-guided sedation during deep enteroscopy.

AIMS

To evaluate safety and efficacy of performing deep (spiral) enteroscopy using gastroenterologist-guided sedation and compare outcomes between patients receiving gastroenterologist-guided and anesthesiologist-guided sedation.

METHODS

This prospective case series contains 91 consecutive patients who underwent deep enteroscopy with spiral Endo-Ease Discovery SB overtube. Of the patients, 64 received gastroenterologist-guided and 27 received anesthesiologist-guided sedation.

RESULTS

In the 64 patients receiving gastroenterologist-guided sedation, successful completion occurred in 59 of 64 enteroscopies (92.2%). Mean insertion depth was 231.0+/-85.8 cm beyond the ligament of Treitz. Total procedure time was 39.9+/-15.7 min (diagnostic time 34.7+/-12.3 min; therapy time 5.2+/-8.9 min). Positive findings were noted in 32 cases (50.0%), with therapy performed in 27 cases (42.2%). Six minor complications occurred. Compared to the anesthesiologist-guided sedation group, there was no difference in patient characteristics except mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2.5+/-0.5 in gastroenterologist-guided group versus 2.7+/-0.6 in anesthesiologist-guided group; p=0.046) and presence of adhesions (ten in gastroenterologist-guided group and zero in anesthesiologist-guided group; p=0.030). Outcomes for both groups were not significantly different except for shorter times in the gastroenterologist-guided group (39.9+/-15.7 min versus 46.0+/-12.1 min; p=0.047) and more frequent findings in the anesthesiologist-guided group (50.0% vs. 74.1%; p=0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep enteroscopy using the spiral overtube can be successfully and safely accomplished with gastroenterologist-guided, nurse-administered standard sedation.