Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Detection of Colonic Polyps Compared with Conventional Colonoscopy and Visualization of Extracolonic Pathologies. Issue 2 (2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hagel, Alexander F; Gäbele, Erwin; Raithel, Martin; Hagel, Wolfgang H; Albrecht, Heinz; de Rossi, Thomas M; Singer, Christine; Schneider, Thomas; Neurath, Markus F; Farnbacher, Michael J
• Is Part Of: Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology. Volume 28:Issue 2(2014)
• Page Start: 77
• Page End: 82
• Publication Date: 2014
• Subjects: Cancer prevention -- Capsule endoscopy -- Colon -- Colonoscopy -- Colorectal cancer; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases; Gastroenterology; Canada; Digestive System Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1155/2014/691785
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2291-2789

Abstract

Abstract : 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.