Download PDF
Endoscopy 2005; 37(7): 674-676
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-870252
Case Report
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Impaction and Fracture of a Video Capsule in the Small Bowel Requiring Laparotomy for Removal of the Capsule Fragments

L.  C.  Fry1 , G.  De Petris2 , J.  M.  Swain3 , D.  E.  Fleischer1
  • 1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
  • 2Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
  • 3Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Further Information

Publication History

Submitted 15 July 2004

Accepted after Revision 4 October 2004

Publication Date:
11 July 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Capsule endoscopy has become an important diagnostic tool because of its high sensitivity and specificity for evaluation of the small-bowel mucosa. It is usually a safe procedure. The main complication has been retention of the video capsule in patients with unsuspected obstructive small-bowel disease. We describe a case of a 76-year-old man who underwent capsule endoscopy for the investigation of chronic abdominal pain. The patient returned several months after the procedure with recurrence of his symptoms. Investigations at that time showed that the capsule had been retained in a section of the distal ileum which showed stricture formation and that it had broken up into fragments. This is the first reported case of a fractured video capsule.

References

  • 1 Lewis B S, Swain P. Capsule endoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding: results of a pilot study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 349-353
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Costamagna G, Shah S K, Riccioni M E. et al . A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  123 999-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Barkin J S, O’Loughlin C. Capsule endoscopy contraindications: complications and how to avoid their occurrence.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2004;  14 61-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barkin J S, Friedman S. Wireless capsule endoscopy requiring surgical intervention: the world’s experience [abstract].  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 S298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fleischer D E, Heigh R I, Nguyen C C. et al . Videocapsule impaction at the cricopharyngeus: a first report of this complication and its successful resolution.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 427-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cheifetz A S, Kornbluth A, Legnani P E. et al .Crohn’s disease and the retained capsule endoscope: is it a “therapeutic complication”? [Abstract.] 3rd International Conference on Capsule Endoscopy; 2004; Miami, USA. 
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Carey E J, Heigh R I, Fleischer D E. Endoscopic capsule endoscope delivery for patients with dysphagia, anatomical abnormalities, or gastroparesis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 423-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Litovitz T, Schmitz B F. Ingestion of cylindrical and button batteries: an analysis of 2382 cases.  Pediatrics. 1992;  89 747-757
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Riccioni M E, Spada C, Spera G. et al . “M2A Patency Capsule” in the evaluation of patients with intestinal strictures: preliminary results [abstract].  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 A6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sharma V K, Sachdev M S, Leighton J A. et al . A prospective study of the utility of abdominal X-ray post capsule endoscopy (CE) for the diagnosis of non-natural excretion (NNE) [abstract].  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 S299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

D. E. Fleischer, M.D.

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · Mayo Clinic Scottsdale

13400 East Shea Boulevard · Scottsdale, AZ 85259 · USA

Fax: +1-480-301-8673

Email: Fleischer.david@mayo.edu

      >