10 years - Over 1000 cases - Summary and analysis of enteroscopy, a single-center retrospective study

Background: The diagnosis of small bowel diseases remains challenging due to limited available diagnostic modalities. This study retrospectively analyzed clinical data from over 1,000 enteroscopy procedures performed over a period of more than 10 years to evaluate the diagnostic value of enteroscopy. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective observational study. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected, including gender, age, examination date, anesthesia method, transoral or transanorectal approach, endoscopic insertion depth, examination findings, complications, and concordance with diagnoses obtained via small bowel CT or capsule endoscopy. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results: A total of 1,215 patients were included in the study, of whom 297 underwent double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and 918 underwent single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE). Among them, 210 underwent oral enteroscopy, 814 underwent anal enteroscopy, and 191 underwent combined oral and anal enteroscopy. The indications for enteroscopy varied, with the most common being abdominal pain (41.1%) and routine follow-up for Crohn's disease (CD) (21.9%). Endoscopic evaluation revealed 555 cases (45.7%) of CD or suspected CD, 210 cases (17.3%) of non-CD small bowel ulcers and erosions (including intestinal tuberculosis, Behcet's disease, nonspecific inflammation, or undiagnosed conditions), 162 cases (13.3%) with negative findings (normal results or findings not explaining the patient's symptoms), 77 cases (6.3%) of small bowel tumors, and 68 cases (5.6%) of small bowel vascular malformations. Three patients experienced gastrointestinal perforation either during the procedure or within 24 hours post-examination. Conclusions: Enteroscopy demonstrates significant diagnostic utility for conditions such as unexplained abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, celiac disease, and small intestinal tumors. Overall, the procedure is considered safe. DBE achieves greater insertion depth compared to SBE, and the oral approach allows for deeper intubation than the anal route. Patients under general anesthesia generally exhibit good tolerance.