BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic yield of wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and enteroclysis in evaluating the extent of small-bowel involvement in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Thirty-one patients (20 men; mean age, 43 y) with endoscopically and histologically proven CD underwent enteroclysis as their initial examination, followed by WCE. The radiologist who performed the small-bowel enema was blinded to the results of standard index endoscopy, which included retrograde ileoscopy. Gastroenterologists were blinded to the results of enteroclysis at the time of interpretation of the WCE video. RESULTS: Abnormal findings were documented in 8 of 31 patients by using enteroclysis and in 22 of 31 patients by using WCE (25.8% vs. 71%, P < .001). In 16 patients with known involvement of the terminal ileum, the diagnostic yield of WCE vs enteroclysis was significantly superior (89% vs 37%, P < .001). In 15 patients without lesions in the terminal ileum, abnormal findings in the proximal small bowel were detected in 7 (46%) patients by WCE and only in 2 (13%) patients by enteroclysis (P < .001). The capsule detected all but 2 lesions diagnosed by enteroclysis. WCE detected additional lesions that were not detected by enteroclysis in 45% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: WCE is superior to enteroclysis in estimating the presence and extent of small-bowel CD. WCE may be a new gold standard for diagnosing ileal involvement in patients with CD without strictures and fistulae.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic yield of wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) and enteroclysis in evaluating the extent of small-bowel involvement in Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Thirty-one patients (20 men; mean age, 43 y) with endoscopically and histologically proven CD underwent enteroclysis as their initial examination, followed by WCE. The radiologist who performed the small-bowel enema was blinded to the results of standard index endoscopy, which included retrograde ileoscopy. Gastroenterologists were blinded to the results of enteroclysis at the time of interpretation of the WCE video. RESULTS: Abnormal findings were documented in 8 of 31 patients by using enteroclysis and in 22 of 31 patients by using WCE (25.8% vs. 71%, P < .001). In 16 patients with known involvement of the terminal ileum, the diagnostic yield of WCE vs enteroclysis was significantly superior (89% vs 37%, P < .001). In 15 patients without lesions in the terminal ileum, abnormal findings in the proximal small bowel were detected in 7 (46%) patients by WCE and only in 2 (13%) patients by enteroclysis (P < .001). The capsule detected all but 2 lesions diagnosed by enteroclysis. WCE detected additional lesions that were not detected by enteroclysis in 45% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: WCE is superior to enteroclysis in estimating the presence and extent of small-bowel CD. WCE may be a new gold standard for diagnosing ileal involvement in patients with CD without strictures and fistulae.