ACTUAL QUESTIONS OF PREPARATION TO VIDEOCAPSULE ENDOSCOPY
https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2018-0-1-21-26
Abstract
AIM to show on the results of our study the influence of the quality of preparationfor videocapsule endoscopy (VCE) on the accuracy of diagnosis of diseases of the small and large intestine. MATERIALS AND METHOD. During the period from September 2014 to December 2016, a videocapsule study was performed on 100 patients of treatment at the State Scientific Center of Coloproctology. Final data processing was carried out based on the results of a survey of 96 patients (52 men and 44 women aged 18 to 78 years). To adequately prepare patients for the study, we used a specific scheme with the use of a «splitdose» of intestinal cleansers based on polyethylene glycol and stimulation solutions. The quality of preparation of the small and / or large intestine for the study was assessed according to the scale of Leighton J.A., Rex D.K. RESULTS. The completeness of the study and the full examination (the ability to visualize all the sections of the small and / or large intestine) are important criteria for conducting the VCE. In our study, a complete study of the small and large intestine was performed in 87 (91 %)patients, and a full study was performed in 86 (90 %) of 96 patients. In the study of the small and large intestine using small intestine or large intestinal videocapsules, in 87 (91 %) patients the intestinal preparation was rated «good» or «excellent». CONCLUSION. The experience of our study showed that in order to obtain reliable and informative results, careful follow-up of the methodology of preparation for the study should be done.
About the Authors
A. V. Galyaev
State Scientific Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Likutov
State Scientific Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. V. Arkhipova
State Scientific Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. A. Mtvralashvili
State Scientific Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. V. Veselov
State Scientific Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Данилов, М.А. Непроходимость кишечника -последствие капсульной эндоскопии у пациента с болезнью Крона / М.А.Данилов, А.О.Атрощенко, С.М.Чудных и соавт. // Гастроэнтерология. -№ 1 (118). - 2016. - с. 54-58.
2. Домарев, Л.В. Подготовка к видеокапсульным исследованиям пищеварительного тракта. / Л.В.Домарев, Ю.Г.Старков // Эффективная фармакотерапия. - 2012. - № 1. - с. 4-8.
3. Завьялов, Д.В. Пропущенные неоплазии толстой кишки. / Д.В.Завьялов, С.В.Кашин // Колопроктология. - 2015. - № 1. - с. 32-38.
4. Ликутов, А.А. Капсульная эндоскопия в диагностике заболеваний тонкой и толстой кишки (Обзор литературы). / А.А.Ликутов // Колопроктология. -2016. - № 2 (56). - с. 75-82.
5. Старков, Ю.Г. Опыт использования капсульной интестиноскопии в диагностике заболеваний органов желудочно-кишечного тракта / Ю.Г.Старков, Л.В.Домарев // Российский журнал гастроэнтерологии, гепатологии, колопроктологии. - 2006. -т. 16. - № 5. - с. 67-71.
6. Dionisio, P.M. Capsule endoscopy has a significantly higher diagnostic yield in patients with suspected and established small-bowel Crohn’s disease: a metaanalysis / P.M.Dionisio, S.R.Gurudu, J.A.Leighton et al. // Am. J.Gastroenterol. - 2010. - № 105. - р. 1240-1248; quiz 1249.
7. Eliakim, R. Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the secondgeneration colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. / R.Eliakim, K.Yassin, Y.Niv et al. // Endoscopy. - 2009. - № 41. - р. 1026-31.
8. Eliakim, R. The PillCam™ Colon Capsule for Colon Cancer Screening: Comparison Between the First- and Second-Generation Capsules. / R.Eliakim // Hosp. Pract. (1995). - 2010 Aug. - № 38 (5). - р. 110-6.
9. Eliakim, R. Evaluation of the PillCam Colon capsule in the detection ofcolonic pathology: results of the first multicenter, prospective, comparative study. / R.Eliakim, Z.Fireman, I.M.Gralnek et al. // Endoscopy. - 2006 Oct. - № 38 (10). - р. 963-70.
10. Iddan, G. Wireless capsule endoscopy. / G.Iddan, G.Meron, A.Glukhovsky et al. // Nature. - 2000. -№ 405. - р. 417.
11. Iddan, G.J. History and development of capsule endoscopy / G.J.Iddan, C.P.Swain // Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am. - 2004. - v. 14. - № 1. - р. 1-9.
12. Leighton, J.A. A grading scale to evaluate colon cleansing for the PillCam COLON capsule: Areliability study. / J.A.Leighton, D.K.Rex // Endoscopy. - 2011. - № 43. - р. 123-7.
13. Liao, Z. Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. / Z.Liao, R.Gao, C.Xu et al. // Gastrointest Endosc. - 2010. - № 71. - р. 280-286.
14. Pilz, J.B. Colon Capsule Endoscopy compared to Conventional Colonoscopy under routine screening conditions. / J.B.Pilz, S.Portmann, S.Peter et al. // BMC Gastroenterol. - 2010. - № 10. - р. 66.
15. Spada, C. Accuracy and safety of second-generation PillCam COLON capsule for colorectal polyp detection. / C.Spada, F.De Vincentis, P.Cesaro et al. // Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. - 2012 May -№ 5 (3). - р. 173-8.
16. Spada, C. Second-generation colon capsule endoscopycompared with colonoscopy. / C.Spada, C.Hassan, M.Munoz-Navas et al. // Gastrointest. Endosc. -2011. - № 74. - р. 581-9.
17. Spada, C. Meta-analysisshows colon capsule endoscopy is effective in detecting colorectal polyps. / C.Spada, C.Hasan, R.Маrмо et al.// Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. - 2010. - № 8. - р. 516-22.
Review
For citations:
Galyaev A.V., Likutov A.A., Arkhipova O.V., Mtvralashvili D.A., Veselov V.V. ACTUAL QUESTIONS OF PREPARATION TO VIDEOCAPSULE ENDOSCOPY. Koloproktologia. 2018;(1):21-26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2018-0-1-21-26
Views:
464
Email this article 
