Abstract
For many years, the small bowel was considered to be a rare location for any pathology. This conviction, together with problems relating to construction of an endoscope dedicated to small bowel investigation, led endoscopists to be relatively uninterested in enteroscopy [1, 2]. This situation changed dramatically at the end of the twentieth century.
The work was first published in 2006 by Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg with the following title: Atlas of Video Capsule Endoscopy.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
12.1 History
For many years, the small bowel was considered to be a rare location for any pathology. This conviction, together with problems relating to construction of an endoscope dedicated to small bowel investigation, led endoscopists to be relatively uninterested in enteroscopy [1, 2]. This situation changed dramatically at the end of the twentieth century.
Three main lines of enteroscope development started in the 1970s: the ropeway type, the sonde type, and the push type. Ropeway enteroscopy was the first technique that allowed complete investigation of the small bowel [3, 4]. This method was based on insertion of the enteroscope over a Teflon tube (instead of a guide string) initially passed through the whole gastrointestinal tract up to the anus. This technique was time consuming and traumatic for the patient. In sonde enteroscopy, a balloon fixed on the endoscope tip was dragged by peristalsis through the small bowel; examination was performed during withdrawal of the instrument [5, 6]. Sonde enteroscopy was also a lengthy procedure, with no possibility of controlling insertion of the instrument. The disadvantages of both methods led to their abandonment. A push enteroscopy prototype was developed at the same time [7, 8]. The instrument was 162 cm in length. The tip was 1 cm in diameter and was inserted under fluoroscopy control. Intubation of 30 cm beyond the ligament of Treitz was presented in the first 250 cases.
Enteroscopy was initially a method with little application. Presentation of the idea that a colonoscope could be used instead of special, dedicated devices was a very important moment in the evolution of enteroscopy [9]. This approach opened the method for every endoscopy unit, and enteroscopy-controlled biopsies then gradually ousted blind biopsies obtained by means of a Rubin tube. Endoscopy allowed direct visual examination of the small bowel mucosa and biopsy sampling during one procedure, as well as repeated biopsies without removing the device. Technical developments continued, with the introduction in the 1990s of longer push enteroscopes (up to 250 cm) with video technology, allowing high-quality images from the oesophagus to the jejunum. For this reason, push enteroscopy was sometimes also called deep upper endoscopy or extended esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
12.2 Methods
The latest generation of push enteroscopes have a working length of 220–250 cm, external diameters of 10.5–11.7 mm, and channel diameters of 2.2–3.8 mm (Fig. 12.1). According to the published studies, a longer instrument does not always correlate with deeper insertion or higher diagnostic yield [10]. Compared with a standard endoscope, the bending section of a push enteroscope is longer, to allow increased angulation in all directions.
No specific preparation is administered before push enteroscopy. The patient fasts for 8 h before the investigation. Examination is carried out with the patient under conscious analgosedation; general anaesthesia is usually not required. Pulse, blood pressure, and arterial oxygen saturation should be monitored during the investigation.
Because of the flexibility of the enteroscope and the winding character of the small bowel, panenteroscopy is not possible. Advancement techniques similar to those used in colonoscopy (instrument progress by pushing, rotation, shortening, and straightening of the endoscope) have a limited effect inside the small bowel. The pushing force results in stretching of the small bowel, precluding further progress and causing patient discomfort. The duodenal tight curve from the duodenal bulb around the head of the pancreas, and its relatively fixed retroperitoneal posterior position also make transmission of propelling force difficult. The enteroscope is usually passed with the patient in the left lateral or semiprone position. If insertion is difficult, the patient may be moved to a supine, right lateral, or prone position. As in colonoscopy, abdominal pressure may be helpful.
Some prospective studies have confirmed a significant increase in insertion depth by using a semi-rigid overtube [11, 12]. This tube has an outer diameter of 14.4 mm, a flexible segment at the distal end, and a radiopaque ring at the tip. The overtube reduces looping of the scope in the stomach and is placed before the pylorus or is inserted into the duodenum after the scope straightening inside the second or third duodenal section. However, published results are mixed, and overtubes are not always used because of the risk of complications. The use of a variable stiffness enteroscope has also been tested [13]. Sometimes the investigation can be performed under fluoroscopy control, in which the position of the enteroscope is checked and looping can be avoided. Use of these techniques usually enables examination of about 40–100 cm of the small intestine beyond the ligament of Treitz [14]. Mucosal examination should be carried out during insertion as well as retraction, because minor mucosal damage can mimic vascular or inflammatory lesions. Because a hypotonic small bowel precludes enteroscope insertion, it may be necessary to use antispasmodic drugs (glucagon or hyoscine i.v.) during the withdrawal phase only.
12.3 Advantages and Diagnostic Yield
The main advantages of push enteroscopy are the short investigation time (20–45 min); full control over the device, allowing repetitive pathology visualisation; and the possibility of biopsy sampling and therapy. Therapeutic options during push enteroscopy include thermocoagulation, treatment with haemoclips, polypectomy, dilation of stenosis, removal of foreign bodies, and placement of enteral feeding tubes [15]. Complications of the procedure (present in about 1 %) are more frequent than for standard upper endoscopy and are always associated with use of an overtube. These complications include mucosal stripping, pharyngeal tear, Mallory-Weiss tear, perforation, and pancreatitis after insertion of the overtube into the small bowel [16, 17].
The diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy ranges from 13 to 78 % and depends on the indication, being highest in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and abnormal findings localised in the distal duodenum or proximal jejunum (Figs. 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9 and 12.10) [18–21]. Many studies and meta-analysis have proven the superiority of wireless capsule endoscopy over push enteroscopy for the diagnosis of small bowel pathology, with a 35–40 % incremental yield [22–27]. The published diagnostic yield of push enteroscopy in these patients is artificially increased by the identification of lesions overlooked during initial gastroscopy [28]. The main limiting factor of push enteroscopy lies in the inability to perform panenteroscopy.
A very interesting experimental study by Appleyard et al. compared capsule endoscopy versus push enteroscopy in dogs [29]. Radiopaque coloured beads (3–6 mm) were surgically implanted into the small bowel of nine dogs (half placed within 100 cm of the pylorus, within reach of the push enteroscope), and all the animals underwent push and capsule enteroscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of push enteroscopy for detecting focal lesions within the entire small bowel were 37 and 97 %, respectively, compared with 64 and 92 % for capsule endoscopy. The higher sensitivity for capsule endoscopy was caused especially by the large number of beads found out of reach of the push enteroscope. On the other hand, the sensitivity of push enteroscopy within 100 cm of the pylorus (94 %) was superior to the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy (53 %), as capsule endoscopy missed lesions in the proximal duodenum because of the endoscopy-assisted delivery of the capsule endoscope inside the small bowel.
Although most endoscopy units (including our centre) indicate video capsule endoscopy followed by one of the deep enteroscopy methods in the majority of patients with small bowel pathology, push enteroscopy can be beneficial in some special situations, such as when a focal upper small intestinal lesion requires biopsy or endoscopy treatment and deep enteroscopy is unavailable [30]. Another role for push enteroscopy can be in patients with malabsorption. In most patients, coeliac disease can be diagnosed by means of duodenoscopy using a conventional gastroscope, carefully assessing the second part of the duodenum and taking biopsy specimens for histology. In some patients, however, the appearance of the duodenum may be abnormal but nonspecific; push enteroscopy is then a substantial tool for proper recognition, uncovering the typical mosaic pattern in the jejunum after getting past the duodenojejunal junction at the ligament of Treitz. If coeliac disease is suspected but both endoscopic and histologic duodenal findings are normal or nonspecific, we recommend enteroscopy to assess jejunal appearance and obtain several biopsy specimens of the jejunal mucosa [31]. According to another study, duodenal biopsies are sufficient to diagnose coeliac disease of Marsh III grade, but Marsh I or II lesions may be missed in some patients [32]. Push enteroscopy improves diagnostic yield in refractory sprue and makes it possible to take several jejunal biopsies for phenotyping of intraepithelial lymphocytes [31].
References
Lewis BS. The history of enteroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1999;9:1–11.
Vilardell F. Digestive endoscopy in the second millennium. From the lichtleiter to echoendoscopy. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2006.
Hiratsuka H, Hasegawa M, Ushiromachi K, Endo T, Suzuki S, Nishikawa F. Endoscopic diagnosis in the small intestine. Stomach Intest. 1972;7:1679–85.
Classen M, Frühmorgen P, Koch H, Demling L. Peroral enteroscopy of the small and the large intestine. Endoscopy. 1972;4:157–62.
Tada M, Akasaka Y, Misaki F, Kawai K. Clinical evaluation of a sonde-type small intestinal fiberscope. Endoscopy. 1977;9:33–8.
Seensalu R. The sonde exam. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1999;9:37–59.
Ogoshi K, Hara Y, Ashizawa S. New technique for small intestinal fiberoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1973;20:64–5.
MacKenzie JF. The push exam. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 1999;9:29–30.
Parker H, Agayoff J. Enteroscopy and small bowel biopsy utilizing a peroral colonoscope. Gastrointest Endosc. 1983;29:139.
Benz C, Jakobs R, Riemann JF. Does the insertion depth in push enteroscopy depend on the working length of the enteroscope? Endoscopy. 2002;34:543–5.
Benz C, Jakobs R, Riemann JF. Do we need the overtube for push enteroscopy? Endoscopy. 2001;33:658–61.
Taylor AC, Chen RY, Desmond PV. Use of an overtube for enteroscopy: does it increase depth of insertion? A prospective study of enteroscopy with and without an overtube. Endoscopy. 2001;33:227–30.
Harewood GC, Gostout CJ, Farrell MA, Knipschield MA. Prospective controlled assessment of variable stiffness enteroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:267–71.
Bureš J, Kopacova M, Tachecí I, Rejchrt S. Enteroscopy: will it achieve the complete journey? Acta Endoscopic. 2005;35:171–7.
Bureš J, Rejchrt S, et al. Small bowel investigation & atlas of enteroscopy. Praha: Grada Publishing; 2001.
Landi B, Cellier C, Fayemendy L, Cugnenc PH, Barbier JP. Duodenal perforation occurring during push enteroscopy [letter]. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:631.
Barkin JS, Lewis BS, Reiner DK, Wave JD, Goldberg RI, Phillips RS. Diagnostic and therapeutic jejunostomy with a new, longer enteroscope. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:55–8.
Chak A, Koehler MK, Sundaram SN, Cooper GS, Canto MI, Sivak Jr MV. Diagnostic and therapeutic impact of push enteroscopy: analysis of factors associated with positive findings. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:18–22.
Landi B, Tkoub M, Gaudric M, Gimbaud R, Cervoni JP, Chaussade S, et al. Diagnostic yield of push type enteroscopy in relation to indication. Gut. 1998;42:421–5.
Descamps C, Schmit A, Van Gossum A. “Missed” upper gastrointestinal tract lesions may explain “occult” bleeding. Endoscopy. 1999;31:452–5.
Lin S, Branch MS, Shetzline M. The importance of indication in the diagnostic value of push enteroscopy. Endoscopy. 2003;35:315–21.
Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Gaudin JL, Fassler I, Villarejo J, Vahedi K, et al. Diagnostic value of endoscopic capsule in patients with obscure digestive bleeding: blinded comparison with video push-enteroscopy. Endoscopy. 2003;35:576–84.
Adler DG, Knipschield M, Gostout C. A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:492–8.
Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, Fleischer DE, Hara AK, Heigh RI, et al. A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:2407–18.
Leighton JA, Sharma VK, Hentz JG, Musil D, Malikowski MJ, McWane TL, Fleischer DE. Capsule endoscopy versus push enteroscopy for evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding with 1-year outcomes. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:891–9.
Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontaidis GI, Gurudu SR, Fleischer DE, Hara AK, et al. A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:954–64.
de Leusse A, Vahedi K, Edery J, Tiah D, Fery-Lemonnier E, Cellier C, et al. Capsule endoscopy or push enteroscopy for first-line exploration of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding? Gastroenterology. 2007;132:855–62.
Nguyen NQ, Rayner CK, Schoeman MN. Push enteroscopy alters management in a majority of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;20:716–21.
Appleyard M, Fireman Z, Glukhovsky A, Jacob H, Shreiver R, Kadirkamanathan S, et al. A randomized trial comparing wireless capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy for the detection of small-bowel lesions. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1431–8.
De Palma GD, Patrone F, Rega M, Simeoli I, Masone S, Persico G. Actively bleeding Dieulafoy’s lesion of the small bowel identified by capsule endoscopy and treated by push enteroscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:3936–7.
Bureš J, Rejchrt S, Kopacova M, Tachecí I, Papik Z, Siroky M, Pozler O. Endoscopic features of coeliac disease. Folia Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:32–41.
Thijs WJ, van Baarlen J, Kleibeuker JH, Kolkman JJ. Duodenal versus jejunal biopsies in suspected celiac disease. Endoscopy. 2004;36:993–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tachecí, I., Bureš, J. (2014). Push Enteroscopy. In: Keuchel, M., Hagenmüller, F., Tajiri, H. (eds) Video Capsule Endoscopy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44062-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44062-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44061-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44062-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)