一项随机对照试验比较了前行单球囊与螺旋肠镜的最大插入深度。

Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2018-01-24 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1179552218754881
Robert A Moran, Sindhu Barola, Joanna K Law, Stuart K Amateau, Daniil Rolshud, Erin Corless, Vandhana Kiswani, Vikesh K Singh, Anthony N Kalloo, Mouen A Khashab, Anne Marie Lennon, Patrick I Okolo, Vivek Kumbhari
{"title":"一项随机对照试验比较了前行单球囊与螺旋肠镜的最大插入深度。","authors":"Robert A Moran, Sindhu Barola, Joanna K Law, Stuart K Amateau, Daniil Rolshud, Erin Corless, Vandhana Kiswani, Vikesh K Singh, Anthony N Kalloo, Mouen A Khashab, Anne Marie Lennon, Patrick I Okolo, Vivek Kumbhari","doi":"10.1177/1179552218754881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Three device-assisted deep endoscopic platforms presently exist and are available for clinical use: double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE), and spiral enteroscopy (SE). In a retrospective study, SE was associated with a greater depth of maximal insertion (DMI) with similar diagnostic yields and procedure time as compared with SBE.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This was a prospective, randomized comparison of SE and SBE with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either anterograde SE or SBE. Patient demographics, indication for procedure, DMI, procedure time, therapeutic procedure time, adverse event, diagnostic findings, and therapeutic interventions were prospectively recorded. The primary outcome was DMI. Secondary outcomes included: procedure time; diagnostic yield; therapeutic yield and adverse event rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 30 patients underwent deep enteroscopy (SE 13, SBE 17). The most common indication was gastrointestinal bleeding in both groups. There was no significant difference in the DMI between SE and SBE (330.0 ± 88.2 cm vs 285.3 ± 80.8 cm, <i>P</i> = .16). There was no difference between SE and SBE in procedure time (37.0 ± 10.5 vs 38.3 ± 12.4, <i>P</i> = .76), diagnostic yield (SE = 9 [69%] vs SBE = 7 [41%], <i>P</i> = .16), or therapeutic yield (SE = 6 [46%] vs SBE = 4 [24%], <i>P</i> = .26). There were no major adverse events in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Spiral enteroscopy and SBE are similar with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events. Small numbers prevent giving a definitive judgment and future adequately powered prospective study is required to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10382,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"1179552218754881"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/aa/10.1177_1179552218754881.PMC5788085.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Depth of Maximal Insertion Between Anterograde Single-Balloon Versus Spiral Enteroscopy.\",\"authors\":\"Robert A Moran, Sindhu Barola, Joanna K Law, Stuart K Amateau, Daniil Rolshud, Erin Corless, Vandhana Kiswani, Vikesh K Singh, Anthony N Kalloo, Mouen A Khashab, Anne Marie Lennon, Patrick I Okolo, Vivek Kumbhari\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1179552218754881\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Three device-assisted deep endoscopic platforms presently exist and are available for clinical use: double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE), and spiral enteroscopy (SE). In a retrospective study, SE was associated with a greater depth of maximal insertion (DMI) with similar diagnostic yields and procedure time as compared with SBE.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This was a prospective, randomized comparison of SE and SBE with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either anterograde SE or SBE. Patient demographics, indication for procedure, DMI, procedure time, therapeutic procedure time, adverse event, diagnostic findings, and therapeutic interventions were prospectively recorded. The primary outcome was DMI. Secondary outcomes included: procedure time; diagnostic yield; therapeutic yield and adverse event rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 30 patients underwent deep enteroscopy (SE 13, SBE 17). The most common indication was gastrointestinal bleeding in both groups. There was no significant difference in the DMI between SE and SBE (330.0 ± 88.2 cm vs 285.3 ± 80.8 cm, <i>P</i> = .16). There was no difference between SE and SBE in procedure time (37.0 ± 10.5 vs 38.3 ± 12.4, <i>P</i> = .76), diagnostic yield (SE = 9 [69%] vs SBE = 7 [41%], <i>P</i> = .16), or therapeutic yield (SE = 6 [46%] vs SBE = 4 [24%], <i>P</i> = .26). There were no major adverse events in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Spiral enteroscopy and SBE are similar with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events. Small numbers prevent giving a definitive judgment and future adequately powered prospective study is required to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1179552218754881\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/06/aa/10.1177_1179552218754881.PMC5788085.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179552218754881\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179552218754881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前有三种设备辅助的深部内窥镜平台可供临床使用:双气囊肠镜、单气囊肠镜(SBE)和螺旋肠镜(SE)。目的:这是一项前瞻性随机比较 SE 和 SBE 在最大插入深度(DMI)、诊断率、手术时间和不良事件发生率方面的研究:对患者进行前瞻性随机分组,让他们接受顺行前列腺电切术或逆行前列腺电切术。前瞻性地记录了患者的人口统计学特征、手术指征、DMI、手术时间、治疗过程时间、不良事件、诊断结果和治疗干预。主要结果是 DMI。次要结果包括:手术时间、诊断率、治疗率和不良事件发生率:研究期间,30 名患者接受了深部肠镜检查(SE 13 例,SBE 17 例)。两组患者最常见的适应症都是消化道出血。SE 和 SBE 的 DMI 无明显差异(330.0 ± 88.2 厘米 vs 285.3 ± 80.8 厘米,P = .16)。SE 和 SBE 在手术时间(37.0 ± 10.5 vs 38.3 ± 12.4,P = .76)、诊断率(SE = 9 [69%] vs SBE = 7 [41%],P = .16)或治疗率(SE = 6 [46%] vs SBE = 4 [24%],P = .26)方面没有差异。两组患者均未发生重大不良事件:结论:螺旋肠镜和 SBE 在 DMI、诊断率、治疗率、手术时间和不良事件发生率方面相似。由于人数较少,无法做出明确的判断,因此需要在未来进行有充分支持的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Depth of Maximal Insertion Between Anterograde Single-Balloon Versus Spiral Enteroscopy.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Depth of Maximal Insertion Between Anterograde Single-Balloon Versus Spiral Enteroscopy.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Depth of Maximal Insertion Between Anterograde Single-Balloon Versus Spiral Enteroscopy.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Depth of Maximal Insertion Between Anterograde Single-Balloon Versus Spiral Enteroscopy.

Background: Three device-assisted deep endoscopic platforms presently exist and are available for clinical use: double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE), and spiral enteroscopy (SE). In a retrospective study, SE was associated with a greater depth of maximal insertion (DMI) with similar diagnostic yields and procedure time as compared with SBE.

Aims: This was a prospective, randomized comparison of SE and SBE with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events.

Methods: Patients were prospectively randomized to undergo either anterograde SE or SBE. Patient demographics, indication for procedure, DMI, procedure time, therapeutic procedure time, adverse event, diagnostic findings, and therapeutic interventions were prospectively recorded. The primary outcome was DMI. Secondary outcomes included: procedure time; diagnostic yield; therapeutic yield and adverse event rates.

Results: During the study period, 30 patients underwent deep enteroscopy (SE 13, SBE 17). The most common indication was gastrointestinal bleeding in both groups. There was no significant difference in the DMI between SE and SBE (330.0 ± 88.2 cm vs 285.3 ± 80.8 cm, P = .16). There was no difference between SE and SBE in procedure time (37.0 ± 10.5 vs 38.3 ± 12.4, P = .76), diagnostic yield (SE = 9 [69%] vs SBE = 7 [41%], P = .16), or therapeutic yield (SE = 6 [46%] vs SBE = 4 [24%], P = .26). There were no major adverse events in either group.

Conclusions: Spiral enteroscopy and SBE are similar with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events. Small numbers prevent giving a definitive judgment and future adequately powered prospective study is required to confirm these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology
Clinical Medicine Insights. Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信