Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

TitleCapsule endoscopy with PillCamSB2 versus PillCamSB3: has the improvement in technology resulted in a step forward?
Author(s)Xavier, Sofia
Monteiro, Sara
Magalhães, Joana Fernandes Silva
Rosa, Bruno
Moreira, Maria João
Cotter, José Almeida Berkeley
Aged, 80 and over
Capsule Endoscopy
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal
Intestine, Small
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Small bowel capsule endoscopy
PillCam SB2
PillCam SB3
Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Crohn's disease
Issue dateMar-2018
PublisherSociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
JournalRevista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
CitationXavier, S., Monteiro, S., Magalhães, J., Rosa, B., Moreira, M. J., & Cotter, J. (2018). Capsule endoscopy with PillCamSB2 versus PillCamSB3: has the improvement in technology resulted in a step forward?. Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, 110(3), 155-159
Abstract(s)Aim: To compare the findings and completion rate of PillCam(r) SB2 and SB3. Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study that included 357 consecutive small bowel capsule endoscopies (SBCE), 173 SB2 and 184 SB3. The data collected included age, gender, capsule type (PillCam(r) SB2 or SB3), quality of bowel preparation, completion of the examination, gastric and small bowel transit time, small bowel findings, findings in segments other than the small bowel and the detection of specific anatomical markers, such as the Z line and papilla. Results: The mean age of the patients was 48 years and 66.9% were female. The two main indications were suspicion/staging of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) (43.7% and 40.3%, respectively). Endoscopic findings were reported in 76.2% of examinations and 53.5% were relevant findings. No significant differences were found between SB2 and SB3 with regard to completion rate (93.6% vs 96.2%, p = 0.27), overall endoscopic findings (73.4% vs 78.8%, p = 0.23), relevant findings (54.3% vs 52.7%, p = 0.76), first tertile findings (43.9% vs 48.9%, p = 0.35), extra-SB findings (23.7% vs 17.3%, p = 0.14), Z line and papilla detection rate (35.9% vs 35.7%, p = 0.97 and 27.1% vs 32.6%, p = 0.32, respectively). With regard to the patient subgroups with suspicion/staging of IBD, significant differences were found in relation to the detection of villous edema and the 3rd tertile findings, thus favoring SB3 (26.3% vs 43.8%, p = 0.02 and 47.4% vs 66.3%, p = 0.02, respectively). Mucosal atrophy was significantly more frequently diagnosed with the PillCam(r) SB3 in patients with anemia/OGIB (0% vs 8%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Overall, PillCam(r) SB3 did not improve the diagnostic yield compared to SB2, although it improved the detection of villous atrophy and segmental edema.
Publisher version
AccessOpen access
Appears in Collections:ICVS - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais com Referee

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
XavierS.pdf966,76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID