HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Matsumoto, T. Articles by Iida, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Matsumoto, T. Articles by Iida, M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Is Small-Bowel Radiography Necessary Before Double-Balloon Endoscopy?

¹ All authors: Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Maidashi 3-1-1, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan.

OBJECTIVE. Small-bowel radiography may be replaced by enteroscopy in the diagnosis of small-intestine lesions. We retrospectively elucidated the diagnostic yield of small-bowel radiography performed before double-balloon endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred twenty-four patients who underwent double-balloon endoscopy during the period 2004–2006 were classified into those with abnormal radiographic findings (n = 45), normal radiographic findings (n = 31), and no small-bowl radiographs (n = 48). The classification was based on the use of small-bowel radiography and the diagnosis before double-balloon endoscopy. The indications for, approaches to, and diagnostic yields of double-balloon endoscopy were compared for the three groups. The diagnostic yield of small-bowel radiography was considered positive when any sign of pathologic change in the small bowel was identified. The diagnostic yield of double-balloon endoscopy was considered positive when endoscopic or biopsy findings explained the clinical manifestations.

RESULTS. The group with abnormal findings on small-bowel radiography was younger (15–86 years) and less frequently had obscure bleeding (8.9%) than the group with normal findings on small-bowel radiography (age, 17–84 years; frequency of obscure bleeding, 45.2%) (p = 0.01) or the group without small-bowel radiographs (age, 15–91 years; frequency of obscure bleeding, 64.6%) (p < 0.0001). The positive diagnostic yield of double-balloon endoscopy was highest in the group with abnormal findings on small-bowel radiography (71.1%), followed by the group with no small-bowel radiographs (45.8%) and the group with normal findings on small-bowel radiography (35.5%) (p = 0.0002). Among patients who did undergo small-bowl radiography, the accuracy of the technique was 68.4%, the positive predictive value was 71.1%, and the negative predictive value was 64.5%. The positive diagnostic yields of small-bowel radiography and double-balloon endoscopy were not statistically different (59.2% for small-bowel radiography, 56.6% for double-balloon endoscopy; p > 0.1).

CONCLUSION. The diagnostic accuracy of double-balloon endoscopy seems to improve if the procedure is preceded by small-bowel radiography.

Keywords: diagnosis • enteroscopy • small-bowel radiography

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?