AIM: To compare the current capsule and a new prototype at 2 and 4 frames-per-second, respectively, in terms of clinical and therapeutic impact. METHODS: One hundred patients with an indication for capsule endoscopy w...AIM: To compare the current capsule and a new prototype at 2 and 4 frames-per-second, respectively, in terms of clinical and therapeutic impact. METHODS: One hundred patients with an indication for capsule endoscopy were included in the study. All procedures were performed with the new device(SB24). After an exhaustive evaluation of the SB24 videos, they were then converted to "SB2-like" videos for their evaluation. Findings, frames per finding, and clinical and therapeutic impact derived from video visualization were analyzed. Kappa index for interobserver agreement and χ2 and Student's t tests for qualitative/quantitative variables, respectively, were used. Values of P under 0.05 were considered statistically significant.RESULTS: Eighty-nine out of 100 cases included in the study were ultimately included in the analysis. The SB24 videos detected the anatomical landmarks(Zline and duodenal papilla) and lesions in more patients than the "SB2-like" videos. On the other hand, the SB24 videos detected more frames per landmark/lesion than the "SB2-like" videos. However, these differences were not statistically significant(P > 0.05). Both clinical and therapeutic impacts were similar between SB24 and "SB2-like" videos(K = 0.954). The time spent by readers was significantly higher for SB24 videos visualization(P < 0.05) than for "SB2-like" videos when all images captured by the capsule were considered. However, these differences become non-significant if we only take into account small bowel images(P > 0.05).CONCLUSION: More frames-per-second detect more landmarks, lesions, and frames per landmark/lesion, but is time consuming and has a very low impact on clinical and therapeutic management.展开更多
文摘AIM: To compare the current capsule and a new prototype at 2 and 4 frames-per-second, respectively, in terms of clinical and therapeutic impact. METHODS: One hundred patients with an indication for capsule endoscopy were included in the study. All procedures were performed with the new device(SB24). After an exhaustive evaluation of the SB24 videos, they were then converted to "SB2-like" videos for their evaluation. Findings, frames per finding, and clinical and therapeutic impact derived from video visualization were analyzed. Kappa index for interobserver agreement and χ2 and Student's t tests for qualitative/quantitative variables, respectively, were used. Values of P under 0.05 were considered statistically significant.RESULTS: Eighty-nine out of 100 cases included in the study were ultimately included in the analysis. The SB24 videos detected the anatomical landmarks(Zline and duodenal papilla) and lesions in more patients than the "SB2-like" videos. On the other hand, the SB24 videos detected more frames per landmark/lesion than the "SB2-like" videos. However, these differences were not statistically significant(P > 0.05). Both clinical and therapeutic impacts were similar between SB24 and "SB2-like" videos(K = 0.954). The time spent by readers was significantly higher for SB24 videos visualization(P < 0.05) than for "SB2-like" videos when all images captured by the capsule were considered. However, these differences become non-significant if we only take into account small bowel images(P > 0.05).CONCLUSION: More frames-per-second detect more landmarks, lesions, and frames per landmark/lesion, but is time consuming and has a very low impact on clinical and therapeutic management.
