Back to Browse Journals » Reports in Medical Imaging » Volume 2

Comparison of a new PillCam™ SB2 video capsule versus the standard PillCam™ SB for detection of small bowel disease

Authors Yoav C Metzger, Samuel N Adler, Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit, Binyamin Koslowsky, Ingvar Bjarnason

Published 8 February 2009 Volume 2009:2 Pages 7—11

DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMI.S4227

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Yoav C Metzger1, Samuel N Adler2, Ariella Bar-Gil Shitrit3, Binyamin Koslowsky4, Ingvar Bjarnason5

1School of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; 2Department of Gastroenterology, Bikur Holim Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel; 3Department of Gastroenterology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel; 4Department of Medicine, Hadassah Medical Organization, Jerusalem, Israel; 5Department of Gastroenterology, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

Background: Capsule endoscopy is the procedure of choice for many suspected small bowel diseases. PillCam™ small bowel (SB), has a high diagnostic yield. No improvements have been made on its optics since its introduction in 2002.

Aim: To compare the diagnostic yield and quality of visualization of PillCam™ SB with that of a new small bowel endoscope (PillCam™ SB2) which has a larger angle of view and upgraded visual attributes.

Methods: Twenty patients were randomized to undergo capsule enteroscopy with PillCam™ SB and PillCam™ SB2 a week apart.

Results: Both procedures had a comparable diagnostic yield. However images from PillCam™ SB2 were found to be significantly better in regards of homogenous light exposure (P < 0.001), sharpness and resolution (P < 0.001), depth of view (P < 0.005), and overall impression (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: PillCam™ SB2 appears to be superior to the original PillCam™ SB in regard to quality of images obtained.

Keywords: small bowel, capsule endoscopy, image quality, resolution

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF] 

 

Readers of this article also read:

Optimal delivery of male breast cancer follow-up care: improving outcomes

Ferzoco RM, Ruddy KJ

Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2015, 7:371-379

Published Date: 23 November 2015

The potential clinical applications and prospects of microRNAs in lung cancer

Gao Y, Gao F, Ma JL, Sun WZ, Song LP

OncoTargets and Therapy 2014, 7:901-906

Published Date: 4 June 2014

Brachytherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer: a review

Banerjee R, Kamrava M

International Journal of Women's Health 2014, 6:555-564

Published Date: 28 May 2014

Clinical epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer in the UK

Doufekas K, Olaitan A

International Journal of Women's Health 2014, 6:537-545

Published Date: 23 May 2014

Ulcerative colitis six years after colon cancer: only a coincidence?

Sakellakis M, Makatsoris T, Gkermpesi M, Peroukidis S, Kalofonos H

International Medical Case Reports Journal 2014, 7:85-88

Published Date: 29 April 2014

Denosumab, a RANK ligand inhibitor, for the management of bone loss in cancer patients

Yee AJ, Raje NS

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2012, 7:331-338

Published Date: 3 September 2012

How to reduce your cancer risk: mechanisms and myths

Nahleh Z, Bhatti NS, Mal M

International Journal of General Medicine 2011, 4:277-287

Published Date: 8 April 2011