Background
Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) is the leading indication for capsule endoscopy (CE), accounting for 70–80% of all procedures performed [1]. The CE diagnostic yield in this setting (50–60%) is superior to that of other diagnostic techniques in the study of the small bowel [2]. This mostly depends on the capability of CE to identify small/flat lesions, often missed by other techniques. On the other hand, protruding lesions (polyps or masses), due to a lack of insufflation, can be difficult to identify; therefore, distinction between masses and bulges still represents a challenging task for CE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C et al (2010) Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 7:280–6
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Fisher L, Lee Krinsky M et al (2010) The role of endoscopy in the management of obscure GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 72:471–9
Mehdizadeh S, Ross A, Gerson L et al (2006) What is the learning curve associated with double-balloon enteroscopy? Technical details and early experience in 6 U.S. tertiary care centers. Gastrointest Endosc 64:740–50
Lewis BS, Eisen GM, Friedman S (2005) A pooled analysis to evaluate results of capsule endoscopy trials. Endoscopy 37:960–5
Chong AK, Chin BW, Meredith CG (2006) Clinically significant small-bowel pathology identified by double-balloon enteroscopy but missed by capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 64:445–9
Shyung LR, Lin SC, Shih SC et al (2009) Proposed scoring system to determine small bowel mass lesions using capsule endoscopy. J Formos Med Assoc 108:533–8
Girelli CM, Porta P, Colombo E et al (2011) Development of a novel index to discriminate bulge from mass on small-bowel capsule endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 74:1067–74
Lewis B (2009) What are the features that differentiate a submucosal bulge from a true mass on capsule endoscopy? What can I do to confirm a submucosal mass? In: Leung J, Lo S, editors. Curbside consultation in endoscopy: 49 clinical questions. Slack, Thorofare, (NJ)
Goenka MK, Majumder S, Kumar S et al (2011) Single center experience of capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. World J Gastroenterol 17:774–8
Esaki M, Matsumoto T, Yada S et al (2010) Factors associated with the clinical impact of capsule endoscopy in patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Dis Sci 55:}2294–301
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
Multiple Choice Questionnaire
-
1)
The estimated miss rate of capsule endoscopy (CE) for neoplastic diseases is
-
a.
1%
-
b.
5%
-
c.
10%
-
d.
20%
-
e.
30%
-
a.
-
2)
Among the following visual clues, which one does not suggest the presence of a small bowel mass?
-
a.
changes in mucosal characteristics
-
b.
presence of bridging folds
-
c.
presence of arteriovenous malformations
-
d.
transit abnormalities
-
e.
synchronous lesions
-
a.
-
3)
Which is the most important parameter that affect the sensitivity of CE to identify small bowel lesions?
-
a.
procedure timing
-
b.
experience of the physician
-
c.
technology of the capsule
-
d.
preparation of the patient
-
e.
all of them
-
a.
1.d — 2.c — 3.a
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rondonotti, E. et al. (2013). Bulging or Mass? This Is the Question. In: Trecca, A. (eds) Atlas of Ileoscopy. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5205-5_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5205-5_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5204-8
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5205-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)