Estenosis biliar secundaria a quiste hidatídico fistulizado que simula tumor de Klatskin / Biliary stenosis secondary to fistulised hydatid cyst that mimics Klatskin tumour

No disponible

Capsule endoscopy capture rate: has 4 frames-per-second any impact over 2 frames-per-second?

AIM: To compare the current capsule and a new prototype at 2 and 4 frames-per-second, respectively, in terms of clinical and therapeutic impact. METHODS: One hundred patients with an indication for capsule endoscopy were included in the study. All procedures were performed with the new device (SB24). After an exhaustive evaluation of the SB24 videos, they were then converted to "SB2-like" videos for their evaluation. Findings, frames per finding, and clinical and therapeutic impact derived from video visualization were analyzed. Kappa index for interobserver agreement and χ (2) and Student's t tests for qualitative/quantitative variables, respectively, were used. Values of P under 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-nine out of 100 cases included in the study were ultimately included in the analysis. The SB24 videos detected the anatomical landmarks (Z-line and duodenal papilla) and lesions in more patients than the "SB2-like" videos. On the other hand, the SB24 videos detected more frames per landmark/lesion than the "SB2-like" videos. However, these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Both clinical and therapeutic impacts were similar between SB24 and "SB2-like" videos (K = 0.954). The time spent by readers was significantly higher for SB24 videos visualization (P < 0.05) than for "SB2-like" videos when all images captured by the capsule were considered. However, these differences become non-significant if we only take into account small bowel images (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: More frames-per-second detect more landmarks, lesions, and frames per landmark/lesion, but is time consuming and has a very low impact on clinical and therapeutic management.

Z-line examination by the PillCam SB: prospective comparison of three ingestion protocols.

AIM: To evaluate the Z-line visualization by the PillCam SB2 using three different ingestion protocols. METHODS: Ninety consecutive patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) between January and May 2008 were included in the study. They swallowed the capsule in the standing (Group A = 30), supine (Group B = 30) and right supine positions (Group C = 30). Baseline patient characteristics, difficulties in capsule ingestion, esophageal transit times (ETT) and Z-line visualization were noted. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to baseline patient characteristics, ingestion difficulties and complete SB examinations (P > 0.05). At least 1 frame of the Z-line was detected in 15.8%, 46.7% and 90% of patients in groups A, B and C, respectively (P < 0.001). The average number of Z-line images was 0.21 +/- 0.53, 3.23 +/- 6.59 and 5.53 +/- 7.55 and the mean % of the Z-line detected was 71.3, 25.1 and 8.3, in groups A, B and C, respectively (both P < 0.001). ETT times were longer in the supine group followed by the right supine and the standing groups (median of 237 s vs 64 s and 39 s, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Z-line visualization in patients undergoing SBCE can be accurately achieved in most cases when the capsule is swallowed in the right supine position.