Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Capsule endoscopy: comparison of two different reading modes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a very useful tool for the evaluation of the small intestine, but it is time consuming. The aim of this study was to compare evaluation times and detection rates in two different reading modes (single view at a speed of 10 frames per second (fps) and four images simultaneously, i.e., quadview mode at a speed of 20 fps) to find the optimum setting mode for evaluation of CE videos.

Methods

CE videos of 70 patients performed for different indications (obscure bleeding, n = 50; suspected Crohn’s disease, n = 10; and suspected or complicated celiac disease, n = 10) were reviewed by investigators A and B in the two different reading modes.

Results

The mean evaluation time using single view at 10 fps was 22 min (SD ± 9.1 min) and 11.9 min (SD ± 4.8 min) using quadview mode at 20 fps. The detection rates of angiodysplasias, erosions, small ulcers, and small polyps were only discreetly lower using the quadview mode at 20 fps. In Crohn’s disease and celiac disease, the essential aspects of inflamed or atrophic mucosa segments were equally detected in both reading modes. In one case of complicated celiac disease with severe erosive jejunitis, a lymphoma-suspect lesion was overlooked in the quadview mode at 20 fps.

Conclusions

It is often possible to read CE videos in quadview mode at a higher speed with even so a high diagnostic yield in a shortened evaluation time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ladas SD, Triantafyllou K, Spada C, Riccioni ME, Rey JF, Niv Y, Delvaux M, de Franchis R, Costamagna G, the ESGE Clinical Guidelines Committee, (2010) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE): recommendations (2009) on clinical use of video capsule endoscopy to investigate small-bowel, esophageal and colonic diseases. Endoscopy 42(3):220–227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mishkin DS, Chuttani R, Croffie J, Disario J, Liu J, Shah R, Somogyi L, Tierney W, Song LM, Petersen BT (2006) ASGE technology status evaluation report: wireless capsule endosopy. Gastrointest Endosc 63(4):539–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ell C, Remke S, May A, Helou L, Henrich R, Mayer G (2002) The first prospective controlled trial comparing wireless capsule endoscopy with push enteroscopy in chronic gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy 34(9):685–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis BS, Swain P (2002) Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: results of a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 56(3):349–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Herrerias JM, Caunedo A, Rodriquez-Tellez M, Pellicer F, Herrerías JM Jr (2003) Capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and negative endoscopy. Endoscopy 35(7):564–568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rondonotti E, Pennazio M, Toth E, Menchen P, Riccioni ME, De Palma GD, Scotto F, De Looze D, Pachofsky T, Tacheci I, Havelund T, Couto G, Trifan A, Kofokotsios A, Cannizzaro R, Perez-Quadrado E, de Franchis R (2008) Small-bowel neoplasms in patients undergoing video capsule endoscopy: a multicenter European study. Endoscopy 40(6):488–495

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Günther U, Bojarski C, Buhr HJ, Zeitz M, Heller F (2010) Capsule endoscopy in small-bowel surveillance of patients with hereditary polyposis syndromes. Int J Colorectal Dis 25(11):1377–1382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pennazio M (2006) Capsule endoscopy: where are we after 6 years of clinical use? Review. Dig Liv Dis 38(12):867–878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cave D, Legnani P, de Franchis R, Lewis BS (2005) ICCE consensus for capsule retention. Endoscopy 37(10):1065–1067

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Karagiannis S, Faiss S, Mavrogiannis C (2009) Capsule retention: a feared complication of wireless capsule endosopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 44(10):1158–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cave DR (2004) Reading wireless capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 14(1):17–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Levinthal GN, Burke CA, Santisi JM (2003) The accuracy of an endoscopy nurse in interpreting capsule endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 98(12):2669–2671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spada C, Riccioni ME, Costamagna G (2007) Raid access real-time device and rapid access software: new tools in the armamentarium of capsule endoscopy. Expert Rev Med Devices 4(4):431–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Westerhof J, Koornstra JJ, Weersma RK (2009) Can we reduce capsule endoscopy reading times? Gastrointest Endosc 69(3Pt1):497–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shiotani A, Honda K, Kawakami M, Murao T, Matsumoto H, Tarumi K, Kusunoki H, Hata J, Haruma K (2011) Evaluation of RAPID® 5 Access software for examination of capsule endoscopies and reading of the capsule by an endoscopy nurse. J Gastroenterol 46(2):138–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Riphaus A, Richter S, Vonderach M, Wehrmann T (2009) Capsule endoscopy interpretation by an endoscopy nurse—a comparative trial. Z Gastroenterol 47(3):273–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Niv Y, Niv G (2005) Capsule endoscopy examination—preliminary review by a nurse. Dig Dis Sci 50(11):2121–2124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bossa F, Cocomazzi G, Valvano MR, Andriulli A, Annese V (2006) Detection of abnormal lesions recorded by capsule endoscopy. A prospective study comparing endoscopist’s and nurse’s accuracy. Dig Liver Dis 38(8):599–602

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Clinic I Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases, Rheumatology, Charité - Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Germany

    Ute Günther, Severin Daum, Martin Zeitz & Christian Bojarski

Authors
  1. Ute Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Severin Daum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Zeitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Bojarski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ute Günther.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Günther, U., Daum, S., Zeitz, M. et al. Capsule endoscopy: comparison of two different reading modes. Int J Colorectal Dis 27, 521–525 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1347-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1347-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation