摘要目的 比较4种影像技术方法在小肠克罗恩病(CD)诊断中的应用价值.方法 57例经临床病理诊断为小肠CD的患者伴有不同程度腹痛、消瘦、腹泻或发热、大便潜血阳性等症状体征,进行回结肠镜、CT小肠成像(CTE)、胶囊内镜(CE)、小肠造影(SBFT)检查,发现异常患者则具体记录病变部位、性质,并对单项检杳及两项检查联合的阳性检出率进行比较.结果 57例CD患者中50例完成了回结肠镜检查,33例发现回肠末端溃疡(66.00%),17例回肠末端正常;CTE 34例,发现小肠病变29例(85.29%);CE 27例,其中1例发生CE在胃内潴留未达小肠,发现小肠病变26例(96.30%);SBFT 39例,发现小肠病变26例(66.67%).CE诊断CD的阳性率最高(96.30%),而回结肠镜最低(66.0%),4种检查方法的阳性率差异有统计学意义(P=0.006).两种检查方法联合的诊断CD的阳性检出率:CE+CTE为92.86%(13/14),SBFT+CTE为90.91%(20/22),CE+回结肠镜为95.65%(22/23),CE+SBFT为100%(17/17),回结肠镜+CTE为89.66%(26/29),回结肠镜+SBFT为77.78%(28/36),两种检查联合的组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.140).结论 CE、CTE诊断轻度、中度CD的阳性率比SBFT高,CE发现早期黏膜病变较好,CTE发现肠壁及肠外病变较好,最重要的是CE及CTE可应用于非梗阻性小肠CD患者,传统技术如SBFT或回结肠镜阴性或不能明确诊断时,CE还可用于解释临床症状、随访及指导治疗.

abstractsObjective To investigate the diagnostic value of capsule endoscopy (CE), CT enterography (CTE), ileocolonoscopy and small bowel follow through (SBFT) for small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). Methods Fifty-seven consecutive patients with CD underwent ileocolonoscopy, CTE, CE, and SBFT. It included the presence of the following symptoms and signs: abdominal pain, weight loss,diarrhea, fever and positive fecal occult blood test. The location and the characteristics of intestinal and extra-intestinal lesions detected by four techniquks were compared. The proportions of patients with positive findings using each examination were compared. Results Of the 57 patients, 50 underwent ileocolonoscopy, terminal ileum lesion was found in 33 patients (66. 00% ), the remaining 17 (34.0%)were normal; among 34 patients who had CTE, 29 of small bowel lesion were found (85. 29% ); CE were performed in 27 patients, due to prolonged gastric transit one time, the capsule did not reach the cecum in one patient during battery lifetime. CE showed small bowel lesion in 26 patients (96.30% ); SBF was performed in 39 patients and 26 of small bowel lesion were detected (66. 67% ). CE had the highest diagnostic yield for CD and ileocolonoscopy had the lowest, and there were statistically significant difference among the 4 examinations (P = 0. 006 ). The combinded positive rates of two methods were: CE + CTE 92. 86% (13/14), SBFT + CTE 90. 91% (20/22), CE + ileocolonoscopy 95. 65% (22/23), CE + SBFT100% (17/17), ileocolonoscopy + CTE 89. 66% ( 26/29 ), ileocolonoscopy + SBFT 77.78% ( 28/36 ), but there were no significant differences between each two examinations. Conclusion CE, CTE have a higher yield in depicting mild to moderate finding of CD than SBFT. CE is better for assessing early mucosal disease,whereas CTE is better for detecting transmural and extraluminal abnormalities. Most important, CE plus CTE may depict nonobstructive CD of the small bowel when conventional techniques such as ileocolonoscopy or SBFF have negative or inconclusive finding. CE provides us explanations for the symptoms of patients, decision to follow up or therapy.