Antegrade Is More Effective Than Retrograde Enteroscopy for Evaluation and Management of Suspected Small-Bowel Disease

Abstract

Antegrade and retrograde enteroscopy are useful for evaluating the proximal and distal small bowel, respectively. We compared the diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and complications of antegrade and retrograde enteroscopy. We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent small-bowel enteroscopy at our institution from January 2008 to August 2009. All enteroscopies were performed using single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE), double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), or spiral enteroscopy (SE). A total of 250 enteroscopies were performed; 182 were antegrade (91 SBE, 52 DBE, and 39 SE) and 68 were retrograde (23 SBE, 37 DBE, and 8 SE). The mean age of the patients was 61.5 ± 15.8 years. The most common indication for small-bowel endoscopy was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 83). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for antegrade than retrograde enteroscopy (63.7% vs 39.7%; P < .001). Antegrade procedures were of shorter duration than retrograde enteroscopy (44.3 ± 22.0 vs 58.9 ± 29.7 min; P < .001), and the mean depth of maximal insertion was significantly greater with antegrade endoscopy (231.8 ± 122.1 vs 103.4 ± 102.8 cm; P < .001). The therapeutic yield also was significantly higher for anterograde enteroscopy than retrograde enteroscopy (55.5% vs 44.1%; P < .001). There were no significant differences in complications. Antegrade enteroscopy appears to provide a higher diagnostic and therapeutic yield than retrograde enteroscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel disease.