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

Effectiveness and safety of novel motorized spiral enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) is a novel advance in small bowel examination that is characterized as fast with a deep insertion. The aim of this study was to elucidate the effectiveness and safety of MSE.

METHODS

Relevant articles that were published before November 1, 2022 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. The technical success rate (TSR), total (pan)-enteroscopy rate (TER), depth of maximum insertion (DMI), diagnostic yield, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 876 patients from 8 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled results of the TSR were 95.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 91.0-98.0%, I2 = 78%, p < 0.01] and the pooled outcome of the TER was 43.1% (95% CI 24.7-62.5%, I2 = 95%, p < 0.01). The pooled results of the diagnostic and therapeutic yields were 77.2% (95% CI 69.0-84.5%, I2 = 84%, p < 0.01) and 49.0% (95% CI 38.0-60.1%, I2 = 89%, p < 0.01), respectively. The pooled estimates of adverse and severe adverse events were 17.2% (95% CI 11.9-23.2%, I2 = 75%, p < 0.01) and 0.7% (95% CI 0.0-2.1%, I2 = 37%, p = 0.13), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MSE is a novel alternative approach for small bowel examination that can achieve high TER and diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and relatively low rates of severe adverse events. Head-to-head studies comparing MSE and other device-assisted enteroscopies are warranted.

Motorized spiral enteroscopy versus double-balloon enteroscopy: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has been postulated to ease the complexities of the standard-of-care double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE). However, there are no comparative studies between MSE and DBE. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes and safety between MSE and DBE.

METHODS

In this case-matched study, patients were matched 1:2 (MSE/DBE) by age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiology scores. Thirty-one patients who underwent MSE were compared with 62 patients who underwent DBE from 2014 to 2022. Our primary outcomes were to compare the technical and diagnostic success rates between DBE and MSE. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the therapeutic success and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

The main indications for enteroscopy were suspected GI bleeding and positive radiologic findings. Prior abdominal surgery was reported in 35.5% and 22.6% of DBE and MSE patients, respectively. Most were antegrade enteroscopy (71%). We found no significant difference in the technical success (DBE 98.4% vs MSE 96.8%, P = .62), diagnostic success (DBE 66.1% vs MSE 54.8%, P = .25), and therapeutic success rates (DBE 62.8% vs MSE 52.9%, P = .62) between the groups. Adverse events occurred in 1 DBE and 11 MSE patients. Most were minor (n = 10, 25.6%). Two patients (5.1%) in the MSE group sustained deep lacerations in the proximal esophagus requiring hospitalization. One developed ileal perforation after MSE needing surgical repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients requiring enteroscopy, the diagnostic and therapeutic performance of MSE is similar to DBE. An increased frequency of adverse events was observed with MSE. There are some restrictions in the indication because of the design of MSE.

Motorized spiral enteroscopy: results of an international multicenter prospective observational clinical study in patients with normal and altered gastrointestinal anatomy

BACKGROUND : Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has been shown to be safe and effective for deep enteroscopy in studies performed at expert centers with limited numbers of patients without previous abdominal surgery. This study aimed to investigate the safety, efficacy, and learning curve associated with MSE in a real-life scenario, with the inclusion of patients after abdominal surgery and with altered anatomy. METHODS : Patients with indications for deep enteroscopy were enrolled in a prospective observational multicenter study. The primary objective was the serious adverse event (SAE) rate; secondary objectives were the diagnostic and therapeutic yield, procedural success, time, and insertion depth. Data analysis was subdivided into training and core (post-training) study phases at centers with different levels of MSE experience. RESULTS : 298 patients (120 women; median age 68, range 19-92) were enrolled. In the post-training phase, 21.5 % (n = 54) had previous abdominal surgery, 10.0 % (n = 25) had surgically altered anatomy. Overall, SAEs occurred in 2.3 % (7/298; 95 %CI 0.9 %-4.8 %). The SAE rate was 2.0 % (5/251) in the core group and 4.3 % (2/47) in the training group, and was not increased after abdominal surgery (1.9 %). Total enteroscopy was achieved in half of the patients (n = 42) undergoing planned total enteroscopy. In 295/337 procedures (87.5 %), the anatomical region of interest could be reached. CONCLUSIONS : This prospective multicenter study showed that MSE was feasible and safe in a large cohort of patients in a real-life setting, after a short learning curve. MSE was shown to be feasible in postsurgical patients, including those with altered anatomy, without an increase in the SAE rate.

The performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy, including in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE). No data are available on the utility of this technique in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE in patients with suspected small-bowel disease, including those with surgically altered GI anatomy.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective observational, uncontrolled study evaluated MSE in consecutive patients with suspected small-bowel pathology and an indication for diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients (102 men; median age 64 years, range 18-89) were included. The overall diagnostic yield was 64.1 %. Endotherapy was performed in 53.5 % of procedures. The median total procedure times for the antegrade and retrograde approaches were 45 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 30-80) and 40 minutes (IQR 30-70), respectively. When total (pan)enteroscopy was intended, this was achieved at rate of 70.3 % (28.1 % by antegrade approach and 42.2 % by a bidirectional approach). Surgically altered GI anatomy was present in 34 /170 of all procedures (20.0 %) and in 11 /45 of the successful total enteroscopy procedures (24.4 %). Propofol sedation or general anesthesia were used in 92.9 % and 7.1 % of the procedures, respectively. Minor adverse events were observed in 15.9 % of patients, but there were no major adverse events.

CONCLUSION

MSE seems to be an effective and safe endoscopic procedure. Total (pan)enteroscopy can be achieved, in one or two sessions, even in the presence of surgically altered GI anatomy. The total procedure time is relatively short. For both antegrade and retrograde MSE procedures, propofol sedation seems sufficient and safe.

Safety and efficacy of the novel motorized power spiral enteroscopy: A single-center experience

Objective

Evaluation 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.

Methods

Retrospective 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.

Results

Fifty-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%.

Conclusion

PSE is a safe and effective modality for the evaluation of small bowel disorders with a high diagnostic yield.

Video Capsule Endoscopy and Device-Assisted Enteroscopy

Mark Hanscom Courtney Stead Harris Feldman Neil B. Marya David Cave.

Small bowel enteroscopy - A joint clinical guideline by the Spanish and Portuguese small-bowel study groups

The present evidence-based guidelines are focused on the use of device-assisted enteroscopy in the management of small-bowel diseases. A panel of experts selected by the Spanish and Portuguese small-bowel study groups reviewed the available evidence focusing on the main indications of this technique, its role in the management algorithm of each indication, and its diagnostic and therapeutic yield. A set of recommendations was issued accordingly.

Total motorized spiral enteroscopy: first prospective clinical feasibility trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) was recently introduced into clinical practice and shown to be safe and effective for antegrade enteroscopy. The aim of the current trial was to prospectively study the efficacy and safety of MSE for visualization of the entire small bowel.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with indications for complete enteroscopy meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in a prospective observational bicentric trial, starting with antegrade MSE; a retrograde approach was performed if MSE remained incomplete from antegrade. The primary objective was to ascertain the total enteroscopy rate (TER); secondary objectives were diagnostic yield, procedural success, time, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), therapeutic yield, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Thirty patients (16 women, 14 men; median age 64 years [range, 37-100]) were enrolled. Technical success rate of antegrade MSE (advancement beyond the ligament of Treitz) and retrograde MSE (advancement beyond the ileocecal valve [ICV]) were 100% and 100%, respectively. Overall TER was 70%: 16.6% antegrade approach alone and 53.4% bidirectional approach. Median antegrade DMI distal from the ligament of Treitz was 490 cm (range, 160-600); median insertion time 26 minutes (range, 15-110). The median retrograde DMI beyond the ICV was 120 cm (range, 40-600), and median insertion time was 17 minutes (range, 1-68). Overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields were 80% and 86.7%, respectively. Overall AE rate was 16.7%. No serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective study showed that complete enteroscopy is feasible with MSE, either from antegrade alone or bidirectionally, with high success rates and short procedural duration. These results justify further evaluation of MSE in a large prospective multicenter study, preferably with inclusion of a control group. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03438695.).

Technical and Clinical Aspects of Diagnostic Single-Balloon Enteroscopy in the First Decade of Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) has been widely used in diagnosing small bowel disease. We conducted this study to systematically appraise its technical and clinical performance.

Methods

Studies on SBE published by September 2018 were systematically searched. Technical and clinical performance data were collected and analyzed with descriptive or meta-analysis methods.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

SBE 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.

Single-balloon and spiral enteroscopy may have similar diagnostic and therapeutic yields to double-balloon enteroscopy: Results from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Double-balloon, single-balloon, and spiral enteroscopy (DBE, SBE, and SE) have revolutionized the management of intestinal diseases. However, evidence about efficacies of these methods is lacking. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes among DBE, SBE, and SE.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials and prospective studies in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese CQVIP database. Studies referencing the comparison of at least two of these three methods were included. Primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Other outcomes were therapeutic yield, total enteroscopy, examination time, time to maximum insertion, and depth of maximal insertion (DMI).

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 727 patients were identified: DBE vs SE (n = 6), DBE vs SBE (n = 4), and SBE vs SE (n = 1). The diagnostic and therapeutic yields did not differ significantly when comparing DBE with SE [odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-2.08; OR = 1.17, 95%CI: 0.61-2.23] and DBE with SBE (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.55-1.33; OR = 1.71, 95%CI: 0.64 - 4.60). Total enteroscopy, examination time, time to maximum insertion, and DMI were similar between SBE and DBE. DBE was superior to SE with regard to DMI [mean difference (MD) = 36.76, 95%CI: 5.09-68.43], with longer time to maximum insertion (MD = 15.14, 95%CI: 12-18.27) and examination time (MD = 12.98, 95%CI: 9.57-16.38).

CONCLUSION

DBE and SBE have similar clinical outcomes. Compared with DBE, SE seems to have similar diagnostic and therapeutic yields, but shorter procedural time in cost of less depth of insertion. SE needs further evaluation vs SBE. DBE is recommended for complete enteroscopy.

Small Bowel Enteroscopy - A Joint Clinical Guideline from the Spanish and Portuguese Small Bowel Study Groups

The present evidence-based guidelines are focused on the use of device-assisted enteroscopy in the management of small-bowel diseases. A panel of experts selected by the Spanish and Portuguese small bowel study groups reviewed the available evidence focusing on the main indications of this technique, its role in the management algorithm of each indication and on its diagnostic and therapeutic yields. A set of recommendations were issued accordingly.

Device assisted enteroscopy in the elderly - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Device assisted enteroscopy (DAE) is increasingly being carried out in elderly patients. This provides a challenge due to the underlying varied physiology and comorbidities these patients have.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for studies on elderly patients undergoing DAE. We calculated the pooled diagnostic (DY) and therapeutic yields (TY), major adverse events, length of small bowel examined and sedation administered. These were also compared to younger patients.

RESULTS

Fourteen high quality articles on DAE in the elderly were included in this analysis (3289 total, 1712 elderly) patients. Nine of these studies were included in the final meta-analysis (681 elderly, 1577 young patients). The overall DY of DAE, double balloon enterosocpy (DBE) and single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) were 0.68 (p = 0.000001), 1.74 (p = 0.0001) and 1.90 (p = 0.009). The TY of DAE, DBE and SBE were 0.45 (p = 0.00001), 2.20 (p = 0.00001) and 2.36 (p = 0.00001). On comparison of elderly and young patients, DY (1.83; 95% CI: 1.49, 2.24; p = 0.00001) and TY (2.28; 95% CI: 1.79, 2.89) were better in elderly patients. There was no difference in adverse events in both groups (2.16; 95% CI: 0.82, 5.69, p = 0.12). Elderly patients were given less sedation than younger patients during DAE.

CONCLUSIONS

DAE has a higher DY and TY in the elderly than younger patients. DAE can be safely carried out in the elderly with less sedation.

Use of a Transparent Cap Increases the Diagnostic Yield in Antegrade Single-Balloon Enteroscopy for Obscure GI Bleed

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is utilized in the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, but 40-50% of these patients experience continued GI blood loss, in part due to missed lesions. The utilization of a transparent cap attached to the end of the endoscope can improve mucosal visualization in other endoscopic applications, but has not yet been evaluated in SBE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a cap on the diagnostic yield of SBE.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients scheduled for anterograde SBE for the evaluation of obscure GI bleeding were screened for inclusion from 2014 to 2017. Patients were randomized to SBE with or without a transparent cap. The primary outcome was the proportion of enteroscopies in which a P2 lesion (high potential for bleeding) was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients (65.7 ± 12.7 years old, 47.7% female) were analyzed. There were significantly more P2 arteriovenous malformations identified in the cap group (14.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.02). Additionally, the use of a cap was associated with a significantly greater depth of small bowel insertion (191.9 cm vs. 156.2 cm, p = 0.01). There was one perforation in the group without a cap, successfully treated with clip placement, and no adverse events in the cap group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a transparent cap during SBE performed for the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding may be an important, safe augmentation to standard SBE techniques.

Device-assisted enteroscopy: A review of available techniques and upcoming new technologies

The advent of video capsule endoscopy into clinical routine more than 15 years ago led to a substantial change in the diagnostic approach to patients with suspected small bowel diseases, often indicating a deep enteroscopy procedure for diagnostical confirmation or endoscopic treatment. Device assisted enteroscopy was developed in 2001 and for the first time established a practicable, safe and effective method for evaluation of the small bowel. Currently with double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy and spiral enteroscopy three different platforms are available in clinical routine. Summarizing, double-balloon enteroscopy seems to offer the deepest insertion depth to the small bowel going hand in hand with the disadvantage of a longer procedural duration. Manual spiral enteroscopy seems to be a faster procedure but without reaching the depth of the DBE in currently available data. Finally, single-balloon enteroscopy seems to be the least complicated procedure to perform. Despite substantial improvements in the field of direct enteroscopy, even nowadays deep endoscopic access to the small bowel with all available methods is still a complex procedure, cumbersome and time-consuming and requires high endoscopic skills. This review will give an overview of the currently available techniques and will further discuss the role of the upcoming new technology of the motorized spiral enteroscopy (PowerSpiral).