Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2025
Double Band Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Comparison With Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection With Ligation (With Video).
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gao Yuan, Ye Liansong, Li Xu, He Long, Yu Bin, Liu Wei, Cao Yuwan, Chen Liuxiang, Mou Yi, Chen Ou, Xie Jia, Du Jiang, Zhang Qiongying, Hu Bing
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Based on endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L), we developed double band ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR) for complete resection of small submucosal rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Both procedures use a multiband device to perform resection, with the only difference being that ESR adds an additional band to obtain deeper resection margin. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness compared with EMR-L.
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with small (≤10 mm) suspected submucosal rectal NETs who underwent ESR (n = 45) or EMR-L (n = 26) between June 2018 and October 2023 at West China Hospital. En bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, margin distance, and adverse events were compared between 2 groups.
RESULTS: En bloc resections were achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate of ESR was higher than EMR-L (100% vs 88.5%, P = 0.045). The vertical margin distance and lateral margin distance were significantly longer in ESR group than EMR-L group (vertical margin distance 782.31 ± 359.45 μm vs 363.84 ± 222.78 μm, P < 0.001; and lateral margin distance 4,205.75 ± 2,167.43 μm vs 3,162.94 ± 1,419.22 μm, P = 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in procedure time, adverse events, postprocedural hospital stay, or medical cost between 2 groups. In addition, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis during the follow-up.
DISCUSSION: ESR seems to be safe and effective for complete resection of small submucosal rectal NETs. Larger, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further assess this technique.
METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with small (≤10 mm) suspected submucosal rectal NETs who underwent ESR (n = 45) or EMR-L (n = 26) between June 2018 and October 2023 at West China Hospital. En bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, margin distance, and adverse events were compared between 2 groups.
RESULTS: En bloc resections were achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate of ESR was higher than EMR-L (100% vs 88.5%, P = 0.045). The vertical margin distance and lateral margin distance were significantly longer in ESR group than EMR-L group (vertical margin distance 782.31 ± 359.45 μm vs 363.84 ± 222.78 μm, P < 0.001; and lateral margin distance 4,205.75 ± 2,167.43 μm vs 3,162.94 ± 1,419.22 μm, P = 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in procedure time, adverse events, postprocedural hospital stay, or medical cost between 2 groups. In addition, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis during the follow-up.
DISCUSSION: ESR seems to be safe and effective for complete resection of small submucosal rectal NETs. Larger, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further assess this technique.