Novel motorized spiral enteroscopy: first clinical case.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Neuhaus H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5989127 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Novel motorized spiral enteroscopy: first clinical case.
Neuhaus Horst H Beyna Torsten T Schneider Markus M Devière Jacques J
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20160830 2
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7332831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEvaluation and management of small bowel disorders have always been challenging due to the limitations of the existing technology. Motorized power spiral enteroscopy (PSE) is an innovative new technique that offers easier, faster, and more complete small bowel evaluation with the ability to perform therapeutics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PSE in various indications.MethodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients, who underwent PSE at a tertiary care center. Primary outcome measures were technical success rate, pan-enteroscopy rate, diagnostic and therapeutic yield, and the secondary outcomes measures were the depth of maximal insertion, median insertion time, and adverse events.ResultsFifty-four patients (mean age of 49.38 ± 16.26 years) underwent PSE for small bowel evaluation. Technical success rate was 95.55% (antegrade route) and 93.10% (retrograde route). Pan-enteroscopy rate is 46.29% and antegrade enteroscopy to the cecum was achieved in eight patients. Overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields were 85.18% and 30.76%, respectively. The most common findings were ulcero-stricturing lesions (51.92%) followed by vascular lesions (9.61%). The most common histopathologic diagnosis was Crohn's disease in 29.62%. Median depth of maximal insertion was 400 cm (range 150-550 cm; antegrade route) and 180 cm (range 50-350 cm; retrograde route). The median insertion time to depth of maximal insertion was 70 min (range 30-110 min; antegrade route) and 45 min (range 20-70 min; retrograde route). PSE-associated major adverse events occurred in one patient and minor adverse events were seen in 48.14%.ConclusionPSE is a safe and effective modality for the evaluation of small bowel disorders with a high diagnostic yield.
| S-EPMC9307745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMotorized Spiral Enteroscopy (MSE) reduces procedure time and increases insertion depth into the small bowel; however, there is scarce evidence on factors affecting MSE efficacy.AimsTo evaluate diagnostic yield and adverse events of MSE including patients with prior major abdominal surgery.MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted on patients undergoing MSE from June 2019 to December 2021. Demographic characteristics, procedure time, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), technical success, diagnostic yield, and adverse events were collected.ResultsSeventy-four anterograde (54.4%) and 62 retrograde (45.6%) enteroscopies were performed in 117 patients (64 males, median age 67 years). Fifty patients (42.7%) had prior major abdominal surgery. Technical success was 91.9% for anterograde and 90.3% for retrograde route. Diagnostic yield was 71.6% and 61.3%, respectively. The median DMI was 415 cm (264-585) for anterograde and 120 cm (37-225) for retrograde enteroscopy. In patients with prior major abdominal surgery, MSE showed significantly longer small bowel insertion time (38 vs 29 min, p = 0.004), with similar diagnostic yield (61 vs 71.4%, p = 0.201) and DMI (315 vs 204 cm, p = 0.226). The overall adverse event rate was 10.3% (SAE 1.5%), with no differences related to prior abdominal surgery (p = 0.598). Patients with prior surgeries directly involving the gastrointestinal tract showed lower DMI (189 vs 374 cm, p = 0.019) with equal exploration time (37.5 vs 38 min, p = 0.642) compared to those with other abdominal surgeries.ConclusionsMSE is effective and safe in patients with major abdominal surgery, although longer procedure times were observed. A lower depth of insertion was detected in patients with gastrointestinal surgery.
| S-EPMC10102144 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The subject Novel Motorized Spiral Enteroscope (NMSE) represents a new technology which offers all of the advantageous options of spiral enteroscopy with a faster and less invasive approach. The system is similar to other currently marketed endoscopes in that it incorporates a flexible insertion tube, light source, digital imaging, and channels for passing accessories for sample collection or therapeutic interventions. The NMSE system is unique in that it incorporates a user-controlled motor contained in the endoscope’s handle to rotate a spiral cuff located on the endoscope’s insertion tube. Rotation of this cuff, which has soft spiral-shaped "fins", pleats the small bowel on to the endoscope’s insertion tube, thereby allowing rapid and atraumatic access deep into the small bowel. The system also includes a display monitor, a motor control unit, device to display measured motor current and signal torque, and a set of foot pedals. Motorization of the Spiral Enteroscope and limitation of rotation to a short cuff instead of a long overtube promise to accelerate the procedure, to facilitate insertion and to improve maneuvering the instrument in comparison to conventional spiral enteroscopy
| 2229945 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Background and aimsThe small bowel has, to date, remained a difficult area to access via endoscopy. The novel motorized power spiral enteroscopy, recently introduced, has more depth of insertion and is of shorter duration. Presented here is a case series of motorized spiral enteroscopies.MethodsMotorized spiral enteroscopy is indicated for patients requiring deep enteroscopy (eg, for a diagnosis of obscure GI bleeding, suspected inflammatory bowel disorder) and for therapeutic interventions, such as polypectomy, hemostasis, or stricture dilatation. It is contraindicated in patients who are not eligible for general anesthesia, with perforation, or with coagulopathy and in the pediatric population. The contraindications for the anterograde route are gastroesophageal varices, foregut stenosis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and so on. The retrograde approach is contraindicated in active colitis, anal stenosis, or colonic stricture. Informed consent was sought from all the patients.ResultsThe procedure was successful in 13 of 14 (92.8%) in that the target site was reached or panenteroscopy was confirmed. The diagnoses were stricture and ulcers of the jejunum or ileum. The procedures performed were argon plasma coagulation and stricture dilation. The average duration of anterograde enteroscopy was 61.1 minutes and retrograde enteroscopy was 90 minutes. The major adverse events were hypothermia (3 of 14) and pancreatitis (1 of 14), from which the patients recovered fully.ConclusionsNovel motorized power spiral enteroscopy is a great tool in small-bowel diagnostics and therapeutics. Speed and ease add to the attractiveness of the procedure.
| S-EPMC7652715 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7650021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims A significant percentage of colonoscopies remain incomplete because of failure to intubate the cecum. The motorized spiral enteroscope (MSE) technique, originally developed for deep small bowel enteroscopy, may be an effective alternative technique in cases of incomplete examination of abnormally long colons (dolichocolon). We prospectively evaluated the success rate of cecal intubation, safety and the therapeutic consequences of using MSE after incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Patients and methods A total of 36 consecutive patients with an indication for diagnostic and/or therapeutic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in this multicenter trial. All patients had undergone at least one incomplete colonoscopy attributed to abnormally long colons. Patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to stenosis were excluded. Results Twenty-two men and 14 women (median age 66 years, range 35-82) were enrolled. Median procedure time was 30 minutes (range 16-50). Cecal intubation rate was 100 % and median cecal intubation time was 10 minutes (range 4-30). Abnormalities, mostly neoplastic lesions, were detected in 23 of 36 patients, corresponding to a diagnostic yield of 64 %. All these findings were in the right side of the colon and had not been described by the antecedent incomplete coloscopy. No adverse events occurred. Conclusions In case of a difficult and long colon, MSE is safe and effective for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. It may provide an attractive solution to accomplish completeness of previous incomplete colonoscopies in these patients.
| S-EPMC9552671 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7570370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThree 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.AimsThis was a prospective, randomized comparison of SE and SBE with respect to DMI, diagnostic yield, procedure time, and rate of adverse events.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsDuring 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.ConclusionsSpiral 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.
| S-EPMC5788085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsSingle-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) has been widely used in diagnosing small bowel disease. We conducted this study to systematically appraise its technical and clinical performance.MethodsStudies on SBE published by September 2018 were systematically searched. Technical and clinical performance data were collected and analyzed with descriptive or meta-analysis methods.ResultsIn total, 54 articles incorporating 4,592 patients (6,036 procedures) were included. Regarding technical parameters, the pooled insertion depths (IDs) for anterograde and retrograde SBE were 209.2 cm and 98.1 cm, respectively. The pooled retrograde ID in Asian countries was significantly greater than that in Western countries (129.0 cm vs 81.1 cm, p<0.001). The pooled anterograde and retrograde procedure times were 57.6 minutes and 65.1 minutes, respectively. The total enteroscopy rate was 21.9%, with no significant difference between Asian and Western countries. Clinically, the pooled diagnostic yield of SBE was 62.3%. Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) was the most common indication (50.0%), with a diagnostic yield of 59.5%. Vascular lesions were the most common findings in Western OGIB patients (76.9%) but not in Asian ones (31.0%). The rates of severe and mild adverse events were 0.5% and 2.5%, respectively.ConclusionsSBE is technically efficient and is clinically effective and safe, but total enteroscopy is relatively difficult to achieve with this technique. Etiologies of OGIB in Asian countries differ from those in Western countries.
| S-EPMC7960980 | biostudies-literature