BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The management of patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding has in the past been difficult, as push enteroscopy (PE) only allows limited endoscopic access for diagnosis and treatment. Recently published uncontrolled data on push-and-pull enteroscopy (PPE) using the double-balloon technique suggest that this new method has a high diagnostic yield and therapeutic efficacy. A prospective controlled study was therefore carried out to compare PPE with PE as the common nonsurgical gold standard method. METHODS: The diagnostic yield, complications, and various examination parameters were compared in 52 consecutive patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding who were evaluated with both enteroscopy methods. RESULTS: No relevant complications were observed with either method. Sedoanalgesia, examination times, and X-ray exposure were lower with PE. The insertion depth was significantly greater with PPE than with PE (230 cm vs 80 cm, p < 0.0001). The overall diagnostic yield with PPE (38 of 52 patients, 73%) and the results of oral PPE only (33 of 52 patients, 63%) were superior to those with PE (23 of 52 patients, 44%; p < 0.0001). PPE identified additional lesions in deeper parts of the small bowel in PE-positive patients in 78% of cases (18 of 23 patients). CONCLUSIONS: For endoscopic examination of the small bowel in patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding, PPE is superior to PE with regard to the length of small bowel visualized, as well as the diagnostic yield. As the method also allows endoscopic treatment to be carried out, PPE should always be considered before open surgery and intraoperative endoscopy in patients with mid-gastrointestinal bleeding.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The management of patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding has in the past been difficult, as push enteroscopy (PE) only allows limited endoscopic access for diagnosis and treatment. Recently published uncontrolled data on push-and-pull enteroscopy (PPE) using the double-balloon technique suggest that this new method has a high diagnostic yield and therapeutic efficacy. A prospective controlled study was therefore carried out to compare PPE with PE as the common nonsurgical gold standard method. METHODS: The diagnostic yield, complications, and various examination parameters were compared in 52 consecutive patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding who were evaluated with both enteroscopy methods. RESULTS: No relevant complications were observed with either method. Sedoanalgesia, examination times, and X-ray exposure were lower with PE. The insertion depth was significantly greater with PPE than with PE (230 cm vs 80 cm, p < 0.0001). The overall diagnostic yield with PPE (38 of 52 patients, 73%) and the results of oral PPE only (33 of 52 patients, 63%) were superior to those with PE (23 of 52 patients, 44%; p < 0.0001). PPE identified additional lesions in deeper parts of the small bowel in PE-positive patients in 78% of cases (18 of 23 patients). CONCLUSIONS: For endoscopic examination of the small bowel in patients with suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding, PPE is superior to PE with regard to the length of small bowel visualized, as well as the diagnostic yield. As the method also allows endoscopic treatment to be carried out, PPE should always be considered before open surgery and intraoperative endoscopy in patients with mid-gastrointestinal bleeding.
Authors: Martin Raithel; Harald Dormann; Andreas Naegel; Frank Boxberger; Eckhart G Hahn; Markus F Neurath; Juergen Maiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 5.742