scholarly journals Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Detection of Colonic Polyps Compared with Conventional Colonoscopy and Visualization of Extracolonic Pathologies

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander F Hagel ◽  
Erwin Gäbele ◽  
Martin Raithel ◽  
Wolfgang H Hagel ◽  
Heinz Albrecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Colonic Polyps ◽  
Conventional Colonoscopy ◽  
Colonic Disease ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Extracolonic Findings ◽  
Colon Capsule ◽  
Technical Failures

BACKGROUND: Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is the gold standard for diagnostic examination of the colon. However, the overall acceptance of this procedure is low due to patient fears of complications or embarrassment. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a minimally invasive, patient-friendly procedure that offers complete visualization of the entire intestine.OBJECTIVE: To assess the PillCam Colon 2 (Given Imaging Ltd, Israel) capsule with regard to feasibility, sensitivity and specificity for the detection of colonic pathologies and additional recorded extracolonic findings.METHODS: CCE was performed before CC in patients indicated for CC for known or suspected colonic disease. The results of both techniques were compared with regard to polyp detection. Additionally, bowel preparation and extracolonic pathologies were analyzed.RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (mean age 51.1 years) were included in the analysis. Visualization of the colon was complete in 23 CCs and 17 CCEs. No adverse events or major technical failures occurred. CC detected 47 polyps and CCE detected 43 polyps of any size (per-finding sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 67.6%). The accuracy of CCE in detecting polyp carriers was 81.5% (per-patient analysis). On average, the colon was adequately cleansed in 90.1% of patients. CCE identified esophageal, gastric and small bowel pathologies in seven (24%), nine (38%) and 14 (58%) patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: CCE proved to be technically feasible and safe. Acceptable sensitivity and moderate specificity levels in polyp detection were recorded. Bowel preparation was adequate in most patients. Because extracolonic pathologies were effectively visualized, new indications for the PillCam Colon 2 may be defined.

scholarly journals Scoring Systems for Clinical Colon Capsule Endoscopy—All You Need to Know

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2372
Author(s):  
Trevor Tabone ◽  
Anastasios Koulaouzidis ◽  
Pierre Ellul
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Colonic Polyps ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Conventional Colonoscopy ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule ◽  
Event Rates

In the constantly developing era of minimal diagnostic invasiveness, the role of colon capsule endoscopy in colonic examination is being increasingly recognised, especially in the context of curtailed endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a safe diagnostic tool with low adverse event rates. As with other endoscopic modalities, various colon capsule endoscopy scores allow the standardisation of reporting and reproducibility. As bowel cleanliness affects CCE’s diagnostic yield, a few operator-dependent scores (Leighton–Rex and CC-CLEAR scores) and a computer-dependent score (CAC score) have been developed to grade bowel cleanliness objectively. CCE can be used to monitor IBD mucosal disease activity through the UCEIS and the panenteric CECDAIic score for UC and CD, respectively. CCE may also have a role in CRC screening, given similar sensitivity and specificity rates to conventional colonoscopy to detect colonic polyps ≥ 10 mm and CRC. Given CCE’s diagnostic yield and reproducible clinical scores with high inter-observer agreements, CCE is fast becoming a suitable alternative to conventional colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

scholarly journals Usefulness of Castor Oil and Elobixibat and Lactulose and ascorbic Aid for Bowel Preparation for Colon Capsule Endoscopy-Initial examination

2021 ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Emission Rate ◽  
Excretion Rate ◽  
Discharge Rate ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Initial Examination ◽  
National Health Insurance System ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Colon capsule endoscopy was approved for reimbursement under the national health insurance system of Japan in 2014. However, the capsule excretion rate after recommended bowel preparation reportedly ranges from 70% to 90%, and administration of boosters is also necessary. The caster oil-based booster had an emission rate of 97%, but required a total water content of 3L. Considering whether it is possible to popularize colon capsule endoscopy by reducing the amount of water, including dialysis patients with water restrictions, we will consider whether the capsule discharge rate can be improved by combining new laxatives.

scholarly journals Colon Capsule Endoscopy vs. CT Colonography Following Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3367
Author(s):  
Ulrik Deding ◽  
Lasse Kaalby ◽  
Henrik Bøggild ◽  
Eva Plantener ◽  
Mie Kruse Wollesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rate Sensitivity ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Proximal Point ◽  
Incomplete Colonoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule

Following incomplete colonoscopy (IC) patients often undergo computed tomography colonography (CTC), but colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be an alternative. We compared the completion rate, sensitivity and diagnostic yield for polyp detection from CCE and CTC following IC. A systematic literature search resulted in twenty-six studies. Extracted data included inter alia, complete/incomplete investigations and polyp findings. Pooled estimates of completion rates of CCE and CTC and complete colonic view rates (CCE reaching the most proximal point of IC) of CCE were calculated. Per patient diagnostic yields of CCE and CTC were calculated stratified by polyp sizes. CCE completion rate and complete colonic view rate were 76% (CI 95% 68–84%) and 90% (CI 95% 83–95%). CTC completion rate was 98% (CI 95% 96–100%). Diagnostic yields of CTC and CCE were 10% (CI 95% 7–15%) and 37% (CI 95% 30–43%) for any size, 13% (CI 95% 9–18%) and 21% (CI 95% 12–32%) for >5-mm and 4% (CI 95% 2–7%) and 9% (CI 95% 3–17%) for >9-mm polyps. No study performed a reference standard follow-up after CCE/CTC in individuals without findings, rendering sensitivity calculations unfeasible. The increased diagnostic yield of CCE could outweigh its slightly lower complete colonic view rate compared to the superior CTC completion rate. Hence, CCE following IC appears feasible for an introduction to clinical practice. Therefore, randomized studies investigating CCE and/or CTC following incomplete colonoscopy with a golden standard reference for the entire population enabling estimates for sensitivity and specificity are needed.

False positive at colon capsule endoscopy or false negative at conventional colonoscopy?

Endoscopy ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 42 (05) ◽  
pp. 427-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Spada ◽  
C. Hassan ◽  
M. Riccioni ◽  
G. Costamagna
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
False Positive ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Conventional Colonoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Colon Capsule
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document