Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore; Division of Medicine, DUKE-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore.
Health Services Research Unit, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Feb;97(2):314-324. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.09.030. Epub 2022 Oct 11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
机动螺旋式内镜(MSE)被认为可以简化标准护理双气囊内镜(DBE)的复杂性。然而,目前还没有 MSE 和 DBE 之间的对比研究。本研究旨在比较 MSE 和 DBE 的治疗效果和安全性。
在这项病例匹配研究中,根据年龄、性别、体重指数和美国麻醉医师协会评分,将患者 1:2 匹配(MSE/DBE)。将 2014 年至 2022 年期间接受 MSE 的 31 例患者与接受 DBE 的 62 例患者进行比较。我们的主要结局是比较 DBE 和 MSE 的技术和诊断成功率。次要结局是比较治疗成功率和不良事件发生率。
内镜检查的主要适应证为疑似胃肠道出血和阳性影像学发现。DBE 和 MSE 患者中分别有 35.5%和 22.6%有腹部手术史。大多数为逆行内镜检查(71%)。我们发现两组在技术成功率(DBE 98.4% vs MSE 96.8%,P=.62)、诊断成功率(DBE 66.1% vs MSE 54.8%,P=.25)和治疗成功率(DBE 62.8% vs MSE 52.9%,P=.62)方面无显著差异。DBE 组和 MSE 组各有 1 例和 11 例发生不良事件。大多数为轻微事件(n=10,25.6%)。MSE 组的 2 例患者(5.1%)近端食管发生深度撕裂伤,需要住院治疗。1 例 MSE 后发生回肠穿孔,需要手术修复。
在需要进行内镜检查的患者中,MSE 的诊断和治疗性能与 DBE 相似。MSE 组观察到不良事件的频率增加。由于 MSE 的设计限制,存在一些适应证限制。