Background:

When performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) using a miniature probe, filling the lumen with water is necessary. However, because of gravity and peristalsis, satisfactory images are often not obtained. Recently, it has been reported that injecting a viscous gel instead of water could facilitate EUS imaging.

Objectives:

To determine if EUS performed with rehydration jelly returned interpretable images when the standard method did not.

Design:

Prospective cohort study.

Methods:

EUS was first attempted in 50 patients using the conventional water-filling method; in cases where satisfactory images were not obtained, EUS was additionally performed using oral rehydration jelly (OS-1). Five endoscopists evaluated the obtained images, and their outcomes were examined.

Results:

Satisfactory images were not obtained in 34 cases when using the water-filling method. The images obtained using the jelly method were improved compared to the water-filling method in 29 cases, with a significant improvement in 18 cases. No complications were observed with the jelly method.

Conclusion:

For EUS, the jelly method will likely yield good images when satisfactory image quality cannot be obtained using the water-filling method.

Plain language summary

Improving endoscopic ultrasound with oral rehydration jelly: a safer and clearer alternative to water

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a medical technique used to examine organs in the digestive system, such as the esophagus and stomach. For accurate imaging, water is usually injected to fill the space between the ultrasound probe and the tissue being examined. However, sometimes water doesn’t stay in place due to body movements or gravity, making it hard to get clear images. This study tested a new approach using an oral rehydration jelly, called OS-1, instead of water during EUS. The jelly is safe to eat and flows more slowly than water, helping it stay in place during the procedure. Fifty patients were included in this study. If the images taken with water were not clear enough, the jelly was then used. The quality of the images taken with jelly was judged by experts and compared to those taken with water. Results showed that the jelly method significantly improved image quality, especially in hard-to-see areas like the esophagus. It also caused no harmful side effects, and no cases of nausea or aspiration were observed with the jelly. In conclusion, using oral rehydration jelly instead of water can make EUS safer, faster, and more effective in certain cases, especially when water doesn’t work well.

Search results

Utility of oral rehydration jelly in probe method endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective cohort study