Anastasios Koulaouzidis1, John N Plevris. 1. Endoscopy Unit, Center for Liver and Digestive Disorders, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK. akoulaouzidis@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the detection rate of the ampulla of Vater (AoV) during small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) examinations and compare the two SBCE systems used in our center. METHODS: SBCE procedures performed in our center from March 2005 to June 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. A single reviewer, following a detailed protocol, analyzed 30 min of each recording to identify the AoV. RESULTS: A total of 619 SBCE procedures were enrolled in the study, including 262 with a PillCam SB1, 148 with a PillCam SB2 and 209 with a MiroCam. AoV was identified in 59 SBCE examinations (9.5%), consisting of 28 with a PillCam SB1 (28/262, 10.7%), 13 with a PillCam SB2 (13/148, 8.8%) and 18 with a MiroCam (18/209, 8.6%) (P = 0.665). The AoV was visualized in 53.2 frames (median 12 frames, range 1-1056 frames); and the detection rate was low regardless of indication, patients' characteristics, SBCE system used or capsule transit parameters. Bile spout was associated with a higher AoV detection (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The persistently low AoV detection rate using two different SBCE systems underlines the weakness of non-steerable capsule endoscopy. Furthermore, if AoV detection is taken as a surrogate marker of small polyp detection, it becomes obvious both that non-steerable SBCE cannot replace a side-viewing endoscope in the evaluation of periampullary polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis and that it is an infallible method in other small bowel polyposis states.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the detection rate of the ampulla of Vater (AoV) during small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) examinations and compare the two SBCE systems used in our center. METHODS: SBCE procedures performed in our center from March 2005 to June 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. A single reviewer, following a detailed protocol, analyzed 30 min of each recording to identify the AoV. RESULTS: A total of 619 SBCE procedures were enrolled in the study, including 262 with a PillCam SB1, 148 with a PillCam SB2 and 209 with a MiroCam. AoV was identified in 59 SBCE examinations (9.5%), consisting of 28 with a PillCam SB1 (28/262, 10.7%), 13 with a PillCam SB2 (13/148, 8.8%) and 18 with a MiroCam (18/209, 8.6%) (P = 0.665). The AoV was visualized in 53.2 frames (median 12 frames, range 1-1056 frames); and the detection rate was low regardless of indication, patients' characteristics, SBCE system used or capsule transit parameters. Bile spout was associated with a higher AoV detection (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The persistently low AoV detection rate using two different SBCE systems underlines the weakness of non-steerable capsule endoscopy. Furthermore, if AoV detection is taken as a surrogate marker of small polyp detection, it becomes obvious both that non-steerable SBCE cannot replace a side-viewing endoscope in the evaluation of periampullary polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis and that it is an infallible method in other small bowel polyposis states.
Authors: Gerard Cummins; Benjamin F Cox; Gastone Ciuti; Thineskrishna Anbarasan; Marc P Y Desmulliez; Sandy Cochran; Robert Steele; John N Plevris; Anastasios Koulaouzidis Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 46.802