回结肠镜与小肠胶囊内镜在疑诊克罗恩病中的诊断价值

目的比较回结肠镜及小肠胶囊内镜在疑诊克罗恩病中的诊断率,探讨回结肠镜及胶囊内镜在疑诊克罗恩病诊断中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析疑诊克罗恩病且先后行回结肠镜及小肠胶囊内镜患者的临床资料。计算并比较回结肠镜、小肠胶囊内镜及两种方法联合运用的灵敏度与特异度。统计不同症状患者回结肠镜及小肠胶囊内镜对克罗恩病的诊断率。结果共133例疑诊克罗恩病患者纳入本研究,随访发现16例确诊为克罗恩病,117例排除克罗恩病。回结肠镜和小肠胶囊内镜及两者联合运用的灵敏度、特异度分别是回结肠镜为81.25%、76.92%;小肠胶囊内镜为62.50%、92.31%;联合运用为87.50%、73.50%。根据症状将患者分为腹痛组、腹泻组、腹痛+腹泻组,3组患者的回结肠镜的诊断率分别为25.64%、32.79%、30.30%;小肠胶囊内镜的诊断率分别为10.26%、9.8%、27.27%。腹泻组患者回结肠镜较小肠胶囊内镜的诊断率高,差异有统计学意义(32.79%vs.9.8%,P=0.003)。结论回结肠镜对克罗恩病的诊断灵敏度较高,可作为疑诊克罗恩病的主要筛查方法。小肠胶囊内镜检查阴性有助于排除克罗恩病。回结肠镜及小肠胶囊内镜对疑诊克罗恩病的准确性均不高,克罗恩病的诊断不能仅凭回结肠镜及小肠胶囊内镜等检查结果,需要结合临床表现、实验室检查、内镜及组织病理学结果进行综合分析。

胶囊内镜、CT小肠成像、小肠造影及回结肠镜对克罗恩病诊断价值的比较

目的 比较4种影像技术方法在小肠克罗恩病（CD）诊断中的应用价值.方法 57例经临床病理诊断为小肠CD的患者伴有不同程度腹痛、消瘦、腹泻或发热、大便潜血阳性等症状体征,进行回结肠镜、CT小肠成像（CTE）、胶囊内镜（CE）、小肠造影（SBFT）检查,发现异常患者则具体记录病变部位、性质,并对单项检杳及两项检查联合的阳性检出率进行比较.结果 57例CD患者中50例完成了回结肠镜检查,33例发现回肠末端溃疡（66.00%）,17例回肠末端正常;CTE 34例,发现小肠病变29例（85.29%）;CE 27例,其中1例发生CE在胃内潴留未达小肠,发现小肠病变26例（96.30%）;SBFT 39例,发现小肠病变26例（66.67%）.CE诊断CD的阳性率最高（96.30%）,而回结肠镜最低（66.0%）,4种检查方法的阳性率差异有统计学意义（P=0.006）.两种检查方法联合的诊断CD的阳性检出率：CE＋CTE为92.86%（13/14）,SBFT＋CTE为90.91%（20/22）,CE＋回结肠镜为95.65%（22/23）,CE＋SBFT为100%（17/17）,回结肠镜＋CTE为89.66%（26/29）,回结肠镜＋SBFT为77.78%（28/36）,两种检查联合的组间比较,差异无统计学意义（P=0.140）.结论 CE、CTE诊断轻度、中度CD的阳性率比SBFT高,CE发现早期黏膜病变较好,CTE发现肠壁及肠外病变较好,最重要的是CE及CTE可应用于非梗阻性小肠CD患者,传统技术如SBFT或回结肠镜阴性或不能明确诊断时,CE还可用于解释临床症状、随访及指导治疗.

Ileoscopy in patients with ileocolonic tuberculosis

AIM: To study the role of retrograde terminal ileoscopy in patients suspected to have ileocolonic tuberculosis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing colonoscopy for suspected ileocolonic tuberculosis between January 2000 and June 2004, in whom retrograde ileoscopy had been performed. Only patients diagnosed with tuberculosis on the basis of histological findings of either a caseating granuloma or those having non-caseating granuloma or a collection of epithelioid cells at a minimum of one endoscopic lesion (either in the colon or the terminal ileum) on histology with good responses to conventional anti-tuberculous drugs were enrolled for the study. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included. The terminal ileum was involved in only 11 patients. Eight of these patients had involvement of the cecum too. Two patients had ileal lesions without cecal involvement; however, lesions were noted in the ascending colon. In one patient the whole colon was normal and only the terminal ileum showed nodularity and ulceration. Histological examination of the ileal biopsies obtained from the ileal lesions showed noncaseating granulomas in five, collection of epithelioid cells in four and nonspecific histology in two patients. Mucosal biopsies obtained from the lesion in the terminal ileum, in the patient in whom mucosal abnormality was observed to be confined to the ileum, showed noncaseating granulomas. In two other patients the ileal biopsies alone showed histological evidence of tuberculosis with biopsies from the colonic lesions showing non-specific inflammatory changes only. CONCLUSION: Retrograde ileoscopy should be performed in all patients undergoing colonoscopy for suspected ileocolonic tuberculosis. In some patients only the terminal ileum may be involved and histological examination may reveal evidence of tuberculosis only from the lesions in the terminal ileum. This approach would lead to additional lesions being picked up andincreasing the chances of well-timed diagnosis of tuberculosis.