Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2010
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions after endoscopic therapy for colorectal tumors.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kuroki Yuichiro, Hoteya Shu, Mitani Toshifumi, Yamashita Satoshi, Kikuchi Daisuke, Fujimoto Ai, Matsui Akira, Nakamura Masanori, Nishida Noriko, Iizuka Toshiro, Yahagi Naohisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Residual or locally recurrent lesions may occur after endoscopic therapy for epithelial colorectal tumors. Additional endoscopic mucosal resection is difficult for large lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection may be useful for such lesions, but may be more technically difficult for residual/locally recurrent lesions than for primary lesions. This study evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions in comparison with primary lesions.
METHOD: This retrospective case-control investigated 34 residual/locally recurrent lesions and 384 primary lesions treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection. Tumor size, resected specimen size, procedure duration, en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, histology, associated complications, and recurrence rate were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Procedure duration tended to be longer (85 ± 53 min vs 73 ± 55 min) and tumors were significantly smaller (20 ± 13 mm vs 33 ± 20 mm; P < 0.001) in the residual/locally recurrent group, compared with primary lesions. Both groups showed similar percentages of en bloc (100% vs 97.4%) and curative resection (88.4% vs. 83.6%). Perforation rate was significantly higher in the residual/locally recurrent group (14.7% vs 4.4%, P < 0.05). However, emergency surgery was only needed in 1 of 5 cases in the residual/locally recurrent group, with the remaining 4 cases conservatively managed using endoclips.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions was curative and efficacy. This procedure could help to avoid surgical resection and frequent follow-up examinations in many patients.
METHOD: This retrospective case-control investigated 34 residual/locally recurrent lesions and 384 primary lesions treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection. Tumor size, resected specimen size, procedure duration, en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, histology, associated complications, and recurrence rate were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Procedure duration tended to be longer (85 ± 53 min vs 73 ± 55 min) and tumors were significantly smaller (20 ± 13 mm vs 33 ± 20 mm; P < 0.001) in the residual/locally recurrent group, compared with primary lesions. Both groups showed similar percentages of en bloc (100% vs 97.4%) and curative resection (88.4% vs. 83.6%). Perforation rate was significantly higher in the residual/locally recurrent group (14.7% vs 4.4%, P < 0.05). However, emergency surgery was only needed in 1 of 5 cases in the residual/locally recurrent group, with the remaining 4 cases conservatively managed using endoclips.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions was curative and efficacy. This procedure could help to avoid surgical resection and frequent follow-up examinations in many patients.