Department of Internal Medicine, Hurley Medical Center/Michigan State University, Flint, Michigan, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Health-Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Dec;86(6):997-1005. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.015. Epub 2017 Jun 23.
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.
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.
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.
Both procedures achieved similar diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes and with similar depth of insertion. Spiral enteroscopy has the benefit of shorter procedural time.
两种新型的内镜检查技术,球囊式内镜和螺旋式内镜,彻底改变了小肠疾病的诊断和治疗方法。这些过去需要手术干预的疾病现在可以通过非手术方式进行检查和治疗。仅有少数几项力度较弱的研究比较了螺旋式内镜和球囊式内镜的结果。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较这两种方法的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了截至 2017 年 1 月 12 日发表的比较球囊式内镜(单球囊或双球囊)和螺旋式内镜疗效和安全性的所有研究,检索的数据库包括 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和 clinicaltrials.gov。主要研究终点为诊断和治疗成功率。其他结局指标包括操作时间、最大插入深度(DMI)、完全性内镜检查率和不良事件。我们计算了分类变量的比值比(OR)和连续变量的均数差(MD)。采用 Mantel-Haenszel 法进行数据分析。对于<50%异质性和>50%异质性的资料分别采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型。
共有 8 项研究符合本荟萃分析的纳入标准。共分析了 615 例操作,其中 394 例为球囊式内镜,221 例为螺旋式内镜。两种内镜的诊断和治疗成功率差异均无统计学意义(OR,1.27;95%置信区间[CI],0.86-1.88;P=0.22;OR,1.23;95%CI,0.82-1.84;P=0.32)。同样,两组的 DMI 也无显著差异(MD,26.29;95%CI,20.92-73.49;P=0.28)。然而,与球囊式内镜组相比,螺旋式内镜组的操作时间显著缩短(MD,11.26;95%CI,2.72-19.79;P=0.010)。对双球囊式内镜与螺旋式内镜的亚组分析也得出了类似的结果。
两种方法的诊断和治疗效果相似,插入深度也相似。螺旋式内镜的优势在于操作时间更短。