Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2018; 06(06): E669-E675
DOI: 10.1055/a-0599-5852
Original article
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2018

Does the PillCam SB3 capsule endoscopy system improve image reading efficiency irrespective of experience? A pilot study

Teppei Omori
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Toshifumi Hara
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Sachiyo Sakasai
2   Central Clinical Laboratory, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Harutaka Kambayashi
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shun Murasugi
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Ayumi Ito
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shinichi Nakamura
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
,
Katsutoshi Tokushige
1   Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 21 June 2017

accepted after revision 20 February 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The aim of this study was tp compare the diagnostic efficiency of the PillCam SB3 capsule endoscopy (CE) system with the older system, PillCam SB2, taking into consideration the experience of the image reader.

Patients and methods Small intestinal CE was conducted on 64 patients around May 2014 when the SB3 was introduced in our hospital. Data obtained from 20 patients (SB2: 10 and SB3: 10) based on transit time were assessed by junior (experience: 20 images), intermediate (> 50), and expert readers (> 600).

Results Reading time with the CE down to the end of the small intestine was shorter in the SB3 group for each reader (SB2 vs. SB3: junior, 40.2 ± 10.1 vs. 23.7 ± 6.7 [P = 0.0009]; intermediate, 21.4 ± 4.9 vs. 10.3 ± 2.9 [P = 0.0003]; expert, 23.2 ± 5.6 vs. 11.1 ± 2.9 min [P = 0.0002]). Interpretation agreement rates between the findings by junior and intermediate readers and those by the expert reader were 84.6 % and 92.3 %, respectively. For the junior reader, rates of agreement using the SB2 and SB3 systems with those by the expert reader were 85.7 % and 83.3 %, respectively; no significant difference was noted between the two systems. Similarly, for the intermediate reader, the respective agreement rates using the SB2 and SB3 systems were 85.7 % and 100 %, respectively.

Conclusions The PillCam SB3 reduces the time burden on readers irrespective of their experience.

 

  • References

  • 1 Iddan G, Meron G, Glukhovsky A. et al. Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature 2000; 405: 417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 PillCam SB. Medtronic. Available at: 2017 http://www.medtronic.com/covidien/products/capsule-endoscopy/pillcam-sb-3-system [Accessed March 10, 2017]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kyriakos N, Karagiannis S, Galanis P. et al. Evaluation of four time-saving methods of reading capsule endoscopy videos. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1276-1280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barkin JA, Barkin JS. Video capsule endoscopy: Technology, reading, and troubleshooting. Gastrointest Endoscopy Clin N Am 2017; 27: 15-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Drew K, McAlindon ME, Sanders DS. et al. The nurse endoscopist: moving ahead with time. Gastroenterol Nurs 2013; 36: 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brock AS, Freeman J, Roberts J. et al. A resource-efficient tool for training novices in wireless capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterol Nurs 2012; 35: 317-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shiotani A, Honda K, Kawakami M. et al. Analysis of small-bowel capsule endoscopy reading by using Quickview mode: training assistants for reading may produce a high diagnostic yield and save time for physicians. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46: e92-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Niv Y, Niv G. Capsule endoscopy examination--preliminary review by a nurse. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 2121-2124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shiotani A, Honda K, Kawakami M. et al. Evaluation of RAPID(®) 5 Access software for examination of capsule endoscopies and reading of the capsule by an endoscopy nurse. J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 138-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Saurin JC, Lapalus MG, Cholet F. et al. French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED). Can we shorten the small-bowel capsule reading time with the "Quick-view" image detection system?. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 477-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hosoe N, Rey JF, Imaeda H. et al. Evaluations of capsule endoscopy software in reducing the reading time and the rate of false negatives by inexperienced endoscopists. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2012; 36: 66-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Günther U, Daum S, Zeitz M. et al. Capsule endoscopy: comparison of two different reading modes. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 521-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Juanmartiñena Fernández JF, Fernández-Urién Sainz I, Zabalza Ollo B. et al. Colonic lesions in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy: incidence, diagnostic and therapeutic impact. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2017; 109: 498-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Monteiro S, de Castro FD, Carvalho PB. et al. PillCam® SB3 capsule: Does the increased frame rate eliminate the risk of missing lesions?. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 3066-3068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kunihara S, Oka S, Tanaka S. et al. Third-Generation Capsule Endoscopy Outperforms Second-Generation Based on the Detectability of Esophageal Varices. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 9671327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McAlindon ME, Ching HL, Yung D. et al. Capsule endoscopy of the small bowel. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4: 369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar