Transmission of oesophageal images may vary between different small-bowel capsule endoscopy models. A retrospective review of 100 examinations performed with 2 different Small-bowel capsule endoscopy （SBCE） sys- te...Transmission of oesophageal images may vary between different small-bowel capsule endoscopy models. A retrospective review of 100 examinations performed with 2 different Small-bowel capsule endoscopy （SBCE） sys- tems （PillCam and MiroCam） was performed. The oral cavity/aero-digestive tract （i.e., tongue, uvula and/or epiglottis） was captured/identified in almost all （99%） of PillCam videos but in none of MiroCam cases, P 〈 0.0001. Furthermore, oesophageal images （i.e., from the upper oesophageal sphincter to the Z-line were cap- tured in 99% of PillCam videos （mean =1= SD, 60.5 ± 334.1 frames, range： 0-3329 frames） and in 66% of Mi- roCam cases （mean ± SD, 11.1 ± 46.5 frames, range： 0-382 frames）, P 〈 0.0001. The Z-line was identified in 42% of PilICam videos and 17% of MiroCam, P = 0.0002. This information might be useful when perform- ing SBCE in patients with high risks for aspiration.展开更多
文摘Transmission of oesophageal images may vary between different small-bowel capsule endoscopy models. A retrospective review of 100 examinations performed with 2 different Small-bowel capsule endoscopy （SBCE） sys- tems （PillCam and MiroCam） was performed. The oral cavity/aero-digestive tract （i.e., tongue, uvula and/or epiglottis） was captured/identified in almost all （99%） of PillCam videos but in none of MiroCam cases, P 〈 0.0001. Furthermore, oesophageal images （i.e., from the upper oesophageal sphincter to the Z-line were cap- tured in 99% of PillCam videos （mean =1= SD, 60.5 ± 334.1 frames, range： 0-3329 frames） and in 66% of Mi- roCam cases （mean ± SD, 11.1 ± 46.5 frames, range： 0-382 frames）, P 〈 0.0001. The Z-line was identified in 42% of PilICam videos and 17% of MiroCam, P = 0.0002. This information might be useful when perform- ing SBCE in patients with high risks for aspiration.
