[Utility of single- and double-balloon enteroscopy]. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;32:424-430. [PMID: 19500878 DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2008.12.010]

Enteroscopy in small bowel Crohn’s disease: A review

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract resulting in inflammation, stricturing and fistulae secondary to transmural inflammation. Diagnosis relies on clinical history, abnormal laboratory parameters, characteristic radiologic and endoscopic changes within the gastrointestinal tract and most importantly a supportive histology. The article is intended mainly for the general gastroenterologist and for other interested physicians. Management of small bowel CD has been suboptimal and limited due to the inaccessibility of the small bowel. Enteroscopy has had a significant renaissance recently, thereby extending the reach of the endoscopist, aiding diagnosis and enabling therapeutic interventions in the small bowel. Radiologic imaging is used as the first line modality to visualise the small bowel. If the clinical suspicion is high, wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is used to rule out superficial and early disease, despite the above investigations being normal. This is followed by push enteroscopy or device assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as is appropriate. This approach has been found to be the most cost effective and least invasive. DAE includes balloon-assisted enteroscopy, [double balloon enteroscopy (DBE), single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) and more recently spiral enteroscopy (SE)]. This review is not going to cover the various other indications of enteroscopy, radiological small bowel investigations nor WCE and limited only to enteroscopy in small bowel Crohn’s. These excluded topics already have comprehensive reviews. Evidence available from randomized controlled trials comparing the various modalities is limited and at best regarded as Grade C or D (based on expert opinion). The evidence suggests that all three DAE modalities have comparable insertion depths, diagnostic and therapeutic efficacies and complication rates, though most favour DBE due to higher rates of total enteroscopy. SE is quicker than DBE, but lower complete enteroscopy rates. SBE has quicker procedural times and is evolving but the least available DAE today. Larger prospective randomised controlled trial’s in the future could help us understand some unanswered areas including the role of BAE in small bowel screening and comparative studies between the main types of enteroscopy in small bowel CD.

Mid-gut stents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal stents offer a feasible, safe, cost effective, and minimally invasive method for reestablishing luminal patency. Previous clinical reports and systematic reviews have demonstrated the role of enteral stents in both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Over the last two decades, the rapid development of deep enteroscopy in concert with the evolution of various stent devices/deployment mechanisms has enabled placement of enteral stents in the mid-gut; hence this has been increasingly reported. The present article focuses on stenting in the mid-gut, a relatively novel term, referring to the small bowel between the ampulla and the ileocecal valve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mid-gut stenting is technically more difficult than stenting in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, and therefore requires particular expertise, restricting its widespread utility. In total, 86 reported cases involving mid-gut stent deployment, by either endoscopic approaches (80.2%) or percutaneous approaches (19.8%), have been published. Although limited, these results have demonstrated that mid-gut stenting is reliable, effective, and a minimally invasive method for palliating malignant obstruction, as well as sealing leaks and fistulae.

SUMMARY

This article reviews the current status of mid-gut stenting, including endoscopic technique. The article also speculates about the potential for future advances within this field.