Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with gel immersion technique for superficial esophageal neoplasms.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iwatsubo Taro, Hakoda Akitoshi, Sugawara Noriaki, Sasaki Shun, Nakajima Noriyuki, Mori Yosuke, Tanaka Hironori, Ota Kazuhiro, Takeuchi Toshihisa, Nishikawa Hiroki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gel immersion (GI) endoscopy provides a good visual field in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, its clinical outcomes are poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between esophageal gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (GI-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) to determine the safety and efficacy of GI-ESD.
METHODS: The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.
RESULTS: A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.
CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.
METHODS: The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.
RESULTS: A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.
CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.