A study published in the August issue of Endoscopy has compared the feasibility and tolerance of transnasal small-caliber and peroral small-caliber upper endoscopy with conventional peroral endoscopy.
A team of doctors in Dusseldorf, Germany, allocated 150 patients, referred for diagnostic endoscopy, to undergo either transnasal small-caliber endoscopy, peroral small-caliber endoscopy or conventional peroral endoscopy.
Complete examination, including the second part of the duodenum and biopsy sampling, was possible in all 150 patients.
Patients examined with a small-caliber instrument required sedation significantly less often than those examined with a conventional endoscope.
Transnasal endoscopy was initially more painful on insertion, but caused less gagging than the peroral procedure.
4 out of 50 patients were unable to undergo transnasal endoscopy because of a narrow nasal tract. These patients instead underwent a peroral procedure.
| Patients examined with an ultrathin instrument required sedation significantly less often and consequently spent less time in the recovery room.|
The authors of the study conclude. “Transnasal diagnostic endoscopy appearsto be a promising alternative to peroral endoscopy.”
“Procedures with small-caliber endoscopes were better tolerated and required sedation less often than those with conventional endoscopes.”