Published online Jun 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i23.7297
Peer-review started: January 29, 2015
First decision: February 10, 2015
Revised: February 27, 2015
Accepted: April 28, 2015
Article in press: April 28, 2015
Published online: June 21, 2015
AIM: To compare the roles of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in the diagnosis of obscure small bowel diseases.
METHODS: From June 2009 to December 2014, 88 patients were included in this study; the patients had undergone gastroscopy, colonoscopy, radiological small intestinal barium meal, abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan and mesenteric angiography, but their diagnoses were still unclear. The patients with gastrointestinal obstructions, fistulas, strictures, or cardiac pacemakers, as well as pregnant women, and individuals who could not accept the capsule-retention or capsule-removal surgery were excluded. Patients with heart, lung and other vital organ failure diseases were also excluded. Everyone involved in this study had undergone CE and DBE. The results were divided into: (1) the definite diagnosis (the diagnosis was confirmed at least by one of the biopsy, surgery, pathology or the drug treatment effects with follow-up for at least 3 mo); (2) the possible diagnosis (a possible diagnosis was suggested by CE or DBE, but not confirmed by the biopsy, surgery or follow-up drug treatment effects); and (3) the unclear diagnosis (no exact causes were provided by CE and DBE for the disease). The detection rate and the diagnostic yield of the two methods were compared. The difference in the etiologies between CE and DBE was estimated, and the different possible etiologies caused by the age groups were also investigated.
RESULTS: CE exhibited a better trend than DBE for diagnosing scattered small ulcers (P = 0.242, Fisher’s test), and small vascular malformations (χ2 = 1.810, P = 0.179, Pearson χ2 test), but with no significant differences, possible due to few cases. However, DBE was better than CE for larger tumors (P = 0.018, Fisher’s test) and for diverticular lesions with bleeding ulcers (P = 0.005, Fisher’s test). All three hemangioma cases diagnosed by DBE in this study (including sponge hemangioma, venous hemangioma, and hemangioma with hamartoma lesions) were all confirmed by biopsy. Two parasite cases were found by CE, but were negative by DBE. This study revealed no obvious differences in the detection rates (DR) of CE (60.0%, 53/88) and DBE (59.1%, 52/88). However, the etiological diagnostic yield (DY) difference was apparent. The CE diagnostic yield was 42.0% (37/88), and the DBE diagnostic yield was 51.1% (45/88). Furthermore, there were differences among the age groups (χ2 = 22.146, P = 0.008, Kruskal Wallis Test). Small intestinal cancer (5/6 cases), vascular malformations (22/29 cases), and active bleeding (3/4 cases) appeared more commonly in the patients over 50 years old, but diverticula with bleeding ulcers were usually found in the 15-25-year group (4/7cases). The over-25-year group accounted for the stromal tumors (10/12 cases).
CONCLUSION: CE and DBE each have their own advantages and disadvantages. The appropriate choice depends on the patient’s age, tolerance, and clinical manifestations. Sometimes CE followed by DBE is necessary.
Core tip: Until now, because of the expensive cost and difficult technology, a study of capsule endoscopy (CE) followed by double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) simultaneously in one case has been rarely reported. To assess the role of CE and DBE in the diagnosis of small bowel diseases, this study was designed to choose the more appropriate examination (between CE and DBE) for obscure small bowel diseases.