Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2020
Long-term Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection for Gastric Subepithelial 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.
Li D M, Ren L L, Jiang Y P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) using long-term patient outcome data.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 73 consecutive patients with gastric SETs was performed from June 2014 to December 2016. The treatment methods included submucosal dissection, submucosal excavation or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). In addition to epidemiological data (sex and age), tumor size, surgical parameters, length of stay, complications, costs, and endoscopic, clinicopathologic, and follow-up data were analyzed to compare treatments.
RESULTS: The complete resection rate was 97.3% (71/73). Three patients experienced complications (4.1%), including 2 with delayed perforation and 1 with perioperative infection. The median postoperative feeding time was 3 days, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days. The median follow-up period was 19 months, with no patient death or tumor recurrence. Among the 38 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the complete resection rate was 97.4% (37/38). The complete resection and complication rates between the endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) group and the EFTR group were not statistically significant. There was no recurrence or metastasis detected among either group; however, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection for gastric SETs (<3 cm) is safe and feasible concerning medium-term and long-term effects. Compared with the EFTR group, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses. Even so, gastric SETs with malignant potential are at risk of recurrence. Larger prospective multicenter studies are warranted.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 73 consecutive patients with gastric SETs was performed from June 2014 to December 2016. The treatment methods included submucosal dissection, submucosal excavation or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). In addition to epidemiological data (sex and age), tumor size, surgical parameters, length of stay, complications, costs, and endoscopic, clinicopathologic, and follow-up data were analyzed to compare treatments.
RESULTS: The complete resection rate was 97.3% (71/73). Three patients experienced complications (4.1%), including 2 with delayed perforation and 1 with perioperative infection. The median postoperative feeding time was 3 days, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days. The median follow-up period was 19 months, with no patient death or tumor recurrence. Among the 38 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the complete resection rate was 97.4% (37/38). The complete resection and complication rates between the endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) group and the EFTR group were not statistically significant. There was no recurrence or metastasis detected among either group; however, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection for gastric SETs (<3 cm) is safe and feasible concerning medium-term and long-term effects. Compared with the EFTR group, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses. Even so, gastric SETs with malignant potential are at risk of recurrence. Larger prospective multicenter studies are warranted.