Surgical endoscopy · 2013
A systematic review regarding the feasibility and safety of endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) for colonic lesions.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Brigic Adela, Symons Nicholas R A, Faiz Omar, Fraser Chris, Clark Susan K, Kennedy Robin H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This review summarizes the published methods of colonic EFTR, examining data on feasibility and safety. Due to the introduction of bowel cancer screening programs, there is an increasing incidence of complex colonic polyps and early colonic cancer that requires segmental colectomy. Traditional radical surgery is associated with significant morbidity, and there is a need for alternative treatments.
METHODS: Systematic literature search identified articles describing EFTR techniques of colon, published between 1990 and 2012. Complication rates, anastomotic bursting pressures, procedure duration, specimen size and quality, and postmortem findings were analyzed.
RESULTS: Five research groups reported four EFTR techniques using endoscopic stapling devices, T-tags, compression closure, or laparoscopic assistance for defect closure before or after specimen resection. A total of 113 procedures were performed in 99 porcine models, with an overall success rate of 89 and 4 % mortality. The intraoperative complication rate was 22 % (0-67 %). Post-resection closure methods more commonly resulted in failure to close the defect (5-55 %) and a high incidence of abnormal findings at postmortem examination (84 %). Significant heterogeneity was observed in procedure duration (median or mean 3-233 min) and size of the excised specimen (median or mean 1.7-3.6 cm). Anastomotic bursting pressures and specimen quality were poorly documented.
CONCLUSIONS: The technique of EFTR is developing, but the inability to close the resection defect reliably is a major obstacle. The review highlights the challenges that need to be addressed in future preclinical studies.
METHODS: Systematic literature search identified articles describing EFTR techniques of colon, published between 1990 and 2012. Complication rates, anastomotic bursting pressures, procedure duration, specimen size and quality, and postmortem findings were analyzed.
RESULTS: Five research groups reported four EFTR techniques using endoscopic stapling devices, T-tags, compression closure, or laparoscopic assistance for defect closure before or after specimen resection. A total of 113 procedures were performed in 99 porcine models, with an overall success rate of 89 and 4 % mortality. The intraoperative complication rate was 22 % (0-67 %). Post-resection closure methods more commonly resulted in failure to close the defect (5-55 %) and a high incidence of abnormal findings at postmortem examination (84 %). Significant heterogeneity was observed in procedure duration (median or mean 3-233 min) and size of the excised specimen (median or mean 1.7-3.6 cm). Anastomotic bursting pressures and specimen quality were poorly documented.
CONCLUSIONS: The technique of EFTR is developing, but the inability to close the resection defect reliably is a major obstacle. The review highlights the challenges that need to be addressed in future preclinical studies.