A young woman with abdominal distension.

We present the case of a 34-year-old woman with haemorrhagic ascites and an extrinsic rectal mass on endoscopy. Endometrioma was subsequently confirmed by laparoscopy and biopsy. Intestinal endometriosis is common, and often mimics other gastrointestinal pathology. Haemorrhagic ascites or intestinal masses are rare presentations of endometriosis, and this is the only reported case of both occurring together. Endometriosis and ascites are more common in women of African descent, and although histological diagnosis requires laparoscopy, MRI has a high negative predictive value; 95% for intestinal endometriosis. Re-accumulation of ascites were prevented by starting a gonadotrophin antagonist.

Endoscopically applied radiofrequency ablation appears to be safe in the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: In unresectable malignant bile duct obstruction in a patient with a life expectancy longer than 3 months, the use of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) is the standard technique to ensure continued biliary drainage. As many as 50% of patients with SEMSs will present with stent occlusion within 6 months. Changes to stent design and composition and concomitant therapy have failed to improve stent patency; therefore, alternative techniques to safely prolong stent patency are required. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety of endobiliary bipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and to report the 90-day biliary patency of this novel procedure. DESIGN: Open-label pilot study. SETTING: Single tertiary care unit. PATIENTS: A total of 22 patients with unresectable malignant bile duct obstruction. INTERVENTIONS: Bipolar RFA within the bile duct. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Immediate and 30-day complications and 90-day stent patency. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (16 pancreatic, 6 cholangiocarcinoma) were recruited between January 2009 and April 2010. Deployment of an RFA catheter was successful in 21 patients. SEMS placement was achieved in all cases of successful RFA catheter deployment. One patient failed to demonstrate successful biliary decompression after SEMS placement and died within 90 days. All other patients maintained stent patency at 30 days. One patient had asymptomatic biochemical pancreatitis, 2 patients required percutaneous gallbladder drainage, and 1 patient developed rigors. At 90-day follow-up, 1 additional patient had died with a patent stent, and 3 patients had occluded biliary stents. LIMITATIONS: Cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: Endobiliary RFA treatment appears to be safe. Randomized studies with prolonged follow-up are warranted.

A prospective study of MR enterography versus capsule endoscopy for the surveillance of adult patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess the utility of MR enterography compared with capsule endoscopy for the detection of small-bowel polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with PJS scheduled for surveillance capsule endoscopy were prospectively recruited and underwent MR enterography and capsule endoscopy. Polyps > 10 mm were regarded as clinically relevant. When appropriate, large polyps (> 15 mm) were removed at enteroscopy, enabling correlation with MR enterography and capsule endoscopy findings. Interobserver agreement for MR enterography and capsule endoscopy was calculated. Patient comfort, convenience, and test preference were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (median age, 39.6 years) underwent both procedures. There was no significant difference between techniques for the detection of polyps > 10 mm (18 vs 23 polyps at capsule endoscopy and MR enterography, respectively; p = 0.35) or in the number of patients in whom > 10 mm polyps were detected (eight vs 11 patients at capsule endoscopy and MR enterography, respectively; p = 0.38). However, in three patients, large polyps (> 15 mm) detected on MR enterography were not detected on capsule endoscopy; large polyps were seen in six patients at capsule endoscopy and in nine patients at MR enterography (p = 0.25). Interobserver agreement was high for MR enterography but was only fair for capsule endoscopy (kappa = 0.81 and 0.27, respectively). Size assessments of large polyps (> 15 mm) appeared more reproducible with MR enterography than with capsule endoscopy. Patients rated capsule endoscopy as more comfortable than MR enterography. There was no significant difference between the techniques with regard to patient convenience or preference. CONCLUSION: MR enterography is a promising alternative to capsule endoscopy for small-bowel surveillance in adults with PJS. Although our results suggest that capsule endoscopy is more comfortable for the patient, MR enterography may be less prone to missing large polyps and may be more reliable in their size assessment.

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.

BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

Feasibility of video capsule endoscopy in the management of children with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a blinded comparison with barium enterography for the detection of small bowel polyps.

OBJECTIVES: Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) in children may present with anaemia, intussusception, or obstruction from an early age and surgery is common. Prophylactic polypectomy may reduce subsequent complications. Traditional barium enterography (BE) has poor sensitivity and requires significant radiation. We compared the performance of capsule endoscopy (CE) with BE in children with PJS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Children with PJS (ages 6.0-16.5 years) were prospectively recruited and underwent BE followed by CE, each reported by expert reviewers blinded to the alternate modality. Number of "significant" (>10 mm) and total number of polyps were recorded. Child preference was assessed using a visual analogue questionnaire. Definitive findings were assessed at laparotomy or enteroscopy, when performed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for >10 mm polyp detection. Six polyps were found in 3 children by both modalities: 3 polyps in 2 children at CE, 3 polyps in 1 child at BE (P=0.50). Re-review of 1 CE identified 3 polyps that were missed in 1 child at initial reading. Significantly more <10 mm polyps were identified by CE than BE: 61 vs 6 (P=0.02). CE was significantly more comfortable than BE (median score CE 76 [interquartile range 69-87] vs BE 37 [interquartile range 31-68], P=0.03) and was the preferred investigation in 90% (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: CE is a feasible, safe, and sensitive test for small bowel polyp surveillance in children with PJS. It is significantly more comfortable than BE and is the preferred test of most children for future surveillance. There is a learning curve for reporting CE studies in PJS and appropriate training is essential.

Computer-aided learning in capsule endoscopy leads to improvement in lesion recognition ability.

BACKGROUND: The rapid expansion in use of capsule endoscopy (CE) has led to discussion about training needs and provision. The lesion recognition skills required for CE are ideally suited to computer-based training. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the educational effectiveness of a computer-based CE training and testing module on trainees with varying experience. DESIGN: This was a prospective educational evaluation study. SETTING: Academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: This study involved 28 trainees of varying CE experience (medical students, gastroenterology trainees) and 4 CE experts. INTERVENTION: Trainees (medical students and gastroenterology trainees) without CE experience completed a 60-question, computer-based test module consisting of 30-second video clips and multiple-choice questions. Without feedback, trainees then completed a comprehensive, menu-driven, computer-based CE training module. The test module was then completed a second time and feedback was given. Expert performance on the test module was benchmarked by 4 CE experts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The first measure was the difference in baseline performance on the test module between trainees and experts (to determine construct validity). The second measure was a change in performance on the test module after training (to determine content validity of the training module). RESULTS: A significant difference was noted in baseline performance (P < .001) among CE experts (mean 73.8% +/- 8.0%), gastroenterology trainees (49.5% +/- 10.9%), and medical students (29.5% +/- 3.3%). Performance improved significantly (P < .001) in both trainee groups after training (gastroenterology trainees' posttraining score 62.1% +/- 7.7%; medical students' 46.7% +/- 6.8%). CONCLUSION: Computer-based learning has a potentially significant role in the development of a training syllabus for CE and in CE accreditation.

Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE. DESIGN: Prospective single-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A total of 150 patients prospectively recruited. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: "standard" (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); "standard" + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: positive findings, diagnostic yield. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.

How should we train capsule endoscopy? A pilot study of performance changes during a structured capsule endoscopy training program.

There are no validated training/accreditation guidelines for capsule endoscopy. We assessed the utility of a structured training program on two experienced gastroenterologists and one endoscopy nurse. Validated studies were standardized for difficulty in blocks of three. Trainees completed a standardized data sheet for each study reported (12 studies for the physicians, 22 studies for the nurse). After each block the trainer graded performance and highlighted learning points. Statistical analysis was performed. Physician trainees accurately identified landmarks throughout, while the nurse made errors even at the end of training. Improvement in lesion detection and diagnostic accuracy improved in the nurse, but in only one of the physician trainees, highlighting the variability in learning curves. Overall performance improved in all trainees but was most marked for the nurse trainee (correlation coefficient 0.41, P = 0.06). Improvements in lesion recognition and diagnosis can be demonstrated in senior trainees and nurses following a structured training program; however, there is considerable variability.

Significant small-bowel lesions detected by alternative diagnostic modalities after negative capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is considered a first-line investigation for obscure GI bleeding (OGIB) and small-bowel polyp or tumor detection. The reliability of a negative CE in excluding gross small-bowel pathology remains unclear. New imaging modalities, such as double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), CT enterography (CTE) or magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) now provide complementary roles to CE for these indications. OBJECTIVE: We describe our experience of significant small-bowel pathology missed at CE in 5 patients. The lesions were subsequently detected by DBE, CTE, or MRE. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. SETTING: Single-center academic endoscopy unit in a tertiary-referral hospital. PATIENTS: Five patients were evaluated: 4 with a history of OGIB (transfusion dependent in 2) and 1 patient with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) under small-bowel surveillance. INTERVENTIONS: CE was performed in all patients. Further evaluation via DBE, CTE, or MRE was performed. Definitive treatment was carried out by enteroscopic polypectomy (1 patient), surgical resection (2 patients), and transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure and embolization (1 patient). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Detection of significant small-bowel pathology by using DBE, CT, or MRE after a negative capsule study. RESULTS: Significant small-bowel pathology was missed at CE but was detected by alternative modalities in 5 patients. In 4 patients, the lesions were in the proximal small bowel (adenocarcinoma, malignant melanoma, varices, and stromal tumor). The fifth patient had a large PJS polyp in the proximal ileum. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective case series with small numbers. CONCLUSIONS: Gross pathology may be missed at CE, especially in the proximal small bowel, and a negative CE study does not exclude significant disease. Alternative imaging modalities, such as DBE, CTE, or MRE, should be considered when clinical suspicion persists.

Safety, reliability and limitations of the given patency capsule in patients at risk of capsule retention: a 3-year technical review.

INTRODUCTION: The patency capsule may prevent capsule retention in high-risk patients. However data on its use in routine clinical practice is limited. METHODS: Patients referred to our institution between Feb-04 and Jan-07 were reviewed. The following data was collected: presenting symptoms; medical/surgical history; medication; radiology; patency/video capsule result; subsequent investigations; clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 373 patients were referred. In 315 (84%) 'low-risk' patients (no patency capsule): delayed transit occurred in three, with no cases of capsule retention. In 58 (16%) 'high risk' patients (patency capsule): asymptomatic retention occurred in eight, all with pathology despite normal prior barium studies in six; in four cases patency location was incorrectly assessed radiologically, leading to video capsule retention and surgery in one. DISCUSSION: Most patients can safely undergo capsule endoscopy without a patency capsule. The patency capsule appears safe and is indicative of pathology when retained. Assessment of patency capsule location post ingestion can be difficult, and if barium radiology is equivocal a limited abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan is suggested.