Study on the role of double-balloon endoscopy and dual-energy CT enterography in evaluating the clinical features of Crohn′s disease
10.3760/cma.j.cn311367-20240627-00250
- VernacularTitle:双气囊小肠镜检查术与双能CT小肠成像评估克罗恩病临床特征的作用研究
- Author:
Ji LIU
1
;
Yanjun CHEN
;
Bingqing YUAN
;
Yue TENG
;
Weichang CHEN
;
Lanxiang ZHU
;
Xueqin PANG
;
Yaqian LU
;
Fujuan LUAN
Author Information
1. 苏州大学附属第一医院消化内科，苏州 215006
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Double-balloon endoscopy;
Dual energy CT;
Crohn′s disease
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestion
2025;45(3):182-188
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the role of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and dual-energy CT enterography (DCTE) in evaluating the clinical characteristics of Crohn′s disease (CD).Methods:From July 1, 2016 to November 1, 2023, 72 patients with CD who underwent both DBE and DCTE (with an interval of less than 3 months) in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were enrolled in this retropective study. Among them, 4 patients underwent both DBE and DCTE twice (a total of 76 cases). The data of DBE and DCTE in the diagnosis of 76 CD cases were analyzed, including the diagnostic rate of CD, the consistency of the 2 methods in detecting the lesion location (ileocecal, colonic, ileocolonic, and upper gastrointestinal tract involvement), and the detection rates of stenosis, ulcer and the location, long ulcer (long-diameter≥2 cm), and fistula. Kappa test was performed for the consistency analysis, and Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis.Results:The diagnostic rate of CD by DBE was higher than that by DCTE (80.3% (61/76) vs. 65.8% (50/76)), and the diagnostic rate of combination of the 2 methods (89.5% (68/76)) was higher than that by DCTE alone, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=4.04 and 12.28, P=0.044 and <0.001). The result of Kappa consistency test showed that the consistency of CD lesion location detected by DBE and DCTE was poor (Kappa value=0.29, t=3.17, P=0.002). The detection rate of stenosis by DBE was higher than that by DCTE (46.1% (35/76) vs. 13.2% (10/76)), the detection rate of stenosis by combination of the 2 methods (52.6% (40/76)) was higher than that by DCTE alone, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=19.73 and 26.82, both P<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the detection rates of fistula among DBE, DCTE, and the combination of the 2 methods (3.9%(3/76), 2.6% (2/76), 5.3% (4/76); all P>0.05). The detection rate of ulcer by DBE was higher than that by DCTE(73.7% (56/76) vs. 7.9% (6/76)), the detection rate of ulcer by combination of the 2 methods (76.3%(58/56)) was higher than that by DCTE alone, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=68.10 and 72.98, both P<0.001). The detection rates of long ulcer and non-terminal ileum ulcer by DBE were both 17.9% (10/56). All the 6 cases with ulcer detected by DCTE were located in the terminal ileum, and no long ulcers were observed. Conclusions:In the diagnosis of CD, as well as in the detection of stenosis and ulcer, DBE and the combination of DBE and DCTE have more advantages over DCTE alone. The consistency between DBE and DCTE in identifying the location of lesion is poor. DBE has advantages in detecting long ulcer and non-terminal ileum ulcer.
