Background and Study Aims: Although a stiffening overtube is commonly used with push enteroscopy, in the belief
that this will allow increased insertion into the small intestine, there is no prospective
data to support this view. The aim of this study is to prospectively study the depth
of insertion into the small intestine at enteroscopy with and without an overtube.
Patients and Methods: A total of 38 patients referred for enteroscopy were prospectively studied. Alternate
enteroscopies were performed with or without an overtube; therefore 19 patients had
enteroscopy with and 19 without an overtube. The groups were well matched for age,
sex, indication, use of fluoroscopy, and dedicated anesthetic assistance. Depth of
insertion was assessed by advancing the enteroscope as far as possible, then straightening
the enteroscope until the tip began withdrawing. The difference between the straightened
insertion depth and the distance from the incisors to the pylorus was recorded as
the insertion depth beyond the pylorus. This was considered the major end point. Statistical
analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test for nonparametric data.
Results: The median straightened total insertion depth from the incisors was greater when
enteroscopy was performed with an overtube compared with enteroscopy without an overtube
(125 cm vs. 110 cm, P = 0.05). The median straightened insertion depth beyond the pylorus was significantly
greater with overtube use (70 cm vs. 50 cm, P = 0.01). No significant difference between the groups was observed in terms of the
likelihood of significant findings at enteroscopy.
Conclusions: Use of an overtube for push enteroscopy results in significantly deeper insertion
into the small intestine. Although a larger study would be needed to demonstrate an
increase in diagnostic yield and to confirm the safety of overtube use, this study
does provide the first objective evidence of an advantage in terms of insertion depth.
References
- 1
Shimizu S, Tada M, Kawai K.
Development of a new insertion technique in push-type enteroscopy.
Am J Gastroenterol.
1987;
82
844-847
- 2
Waye J D.
Small-bowel endoscopy [review].
Endoscopy.
1999;
31
56-59
- 3
Chak A, Koehler M K, Sundaram S N, et al.
Diagnostic and therapeutic impact of push enteroscopy: analysis of factors associated
with positive findings.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1998;
47
18-22
- 4
Pennazio M, Arrigoni A, Risio M, et al.
Clinical evaluation of push-type enteroscopy.
Endoscopy.
1995;
27
164-170
- 5
Yang R, Laine L.
Mucosal stripping: a complication of push enteroscopy.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1995;
41
156-158
- 6
O’Mahony S, Morris A J, Straiton M, et al.
Push enteroscopy in the investigation of small-intestinal disease.
QJM.
1996;
89
685-690
- 7
Zaman A, Katon R M.
Push enteroscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding yields a high incidence of
proximal lesions within reach of a standard endoscope.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1998;
47
372-376
- 8
Schmit A, Gay F, Adler M, et al.
Diagnostic efficacy of push-enteroscopy and long-term follow-up of patients with small
bowel angiodysplasias.
Dig Dis Sci.
1996;
41
2348-2352
- 9
Wilmer A, Rutgeerts P.
Push enteroscopy. Technique, depth, and yield of insertion [review].
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am.
1996;
6
759-776
- 10
Landi B, Cellier C, Fayemendy L, et al.
Duodenal perforation occurring during push enteroscopy [letter].
Gastrointest Endosc.
1996;
43
631
- 11
Chong J, Tagle M, Barkin J S, Reiner D K.
Small bowel push-type fiberoptic enteroscopy for patients with occult gastrointestinal
bleeding or suspected small bowel pathology.
Am J Gastroenterol.
1994;
89
2143-2146
- 12
Barkin J, Lewis B, Reiner D, et al.
Diagnostic and therapeutic jejunoscopy with a new, longer enteroscope.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1992;
38
55-58
A. C. F. Taylor, M. D.
Gastroenterology Dept.
St Vincent's Hospital
41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy 3065
Victoria, Australia
Fax: Fax:+ 61-3-9288-3590
Email: E-mail:taylorac@svhm.org.au
