Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

21 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Salvage resection of recurrent polyp after polypectomy on the colorectal anastomosis using endoscopic submucosal dissection.

ABSTRACT:

SUBMITTER: Wada M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5990976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Salvage circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for refractory dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7729848 | biostudies-literature

Laparoscopy-assisted nonexposed endoscopic full-thickness resection for local resection after endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description:Video 1Nonexposed endoscopic wall inversion surgery for local resection of microscopic residual tumor after endoscopic submucosal dissection.

| S-EPMC11009435 | biostudies-literature

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal adenoma and tumors: Meta-analysis and system review.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating colorectal adenomas and tumors.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Parameters such as number of patients or lesions, histological diagnosis, lesion size, surgery time, en-bloc resection, R0 resection, severe postoperative complications, and local recurrence were extracted and pooled for analysis.ResultsA total of 12 retrospective studies involving 1289 patients and 1850 lesions were included in the analysis. EMR was found to have a shorter operation time by 53.6 minutes (95% CI: 51.3, 55.9, P<0.001) and fewer incidences of severe postoperative complications such as perforation and delayed bleeding (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.71, P<0.001). On the other hand, ESD had higher rates of en-bloc resection (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.30, P<0.001) and R0 resection (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.16, 0.65, P<0.001). Recurrence after EMR was found to be significantly higher than that after ESD surgery (OR = 5.88, 95%CI: 2.15, 16.07, P = 0.037).ConclusionsThe study suggests that the choice of surgical method may have a greater impact on recurrence compared to the pathological type, and that ESD may be more suitable for the treatment of malignant lesions despite its higher rates of severe postoperative complications and longer operation time.

| S-EPMC10538725 | biostudies-literature

Bridge formation method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10099846 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic submucosal dissection using scissors-type knife for a giant solitary duodenal polyp.

Project description:Video 1.

| S-EPMC8351124 | biostudies-literature

Resection depth for small colorectal polyps comparing cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Project description:Background and study aims Small colorectal polyps are removed by various methods, including cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), but the indications for using these methods are unclear. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of CSP, HSP, and UEMR for small polyps, focusing on the depth of the resected specimens. Patients and methods Outpatients with non-pedunculated small polyps (endoscopically diagnosed as 6 to 9 mm), resected by two endoscopists between July 2019 and September 2020, were enrolled. We histologically evaluated the specimens resected via CSP, HSP, and UEMR. The main outcome was the containment rate of the muscularis mucosa (MM) and submucosa (SM) tissues. Results Forty polyps resected via CSP (n = 14), HSP (n = 12), or UEMR (n = 14) were enrolled after excluding 13 polyps with resection depths that were difficult to determine. The rates of specimens containing MM and SM tissue differed significantly (57 % and 29 % for CSP, 92 % and 83 % for HSP, and 100 % and 100 % for UEMR, respectively ( P = 0.005 for MM and P < 0.001 for SM tissue). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed UEMR was an independent factor relating to the containment of SM tissue. The thickness of SM tissue by CSP, HSP, and UEMR were 52 μm, 623 μm, and 1119 μm, respectively ( P < 0.001). The thickness by CSP was significantly less than those by HSP and UEMR ( P < 0.001, Bonferroni correction). Conclusions UEMR could be the best method to contain SM tissue without injection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the indication of UEMR for small polyps.

| S-EPMC9106413 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection: use of a novel bipolar radiofrequency and microwave-powered device for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7426889 | biostudies-literature

Multiloop method for traction during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6317950 | biostudies-literature

A Novel Retractable Robotic Device for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Project description:Background/aims: Appropriate tissue tension and clear visibility of the dissection area using traction are essential for effective and safe endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In this study, we developed a retractable robot-assisted traction device and evaluated its performance in colorectal ESD.Methods: An experienced endoscopist performed ESD 18 times on an ex vivo porcine colon using the robot and 18 times using the conventional method. The outcome measures were procedure time, dissection speed, procedure-related adverse events, and blind dissection rate.Results: Thirty-six colonic lesions were resected from ex vivo porcine colon samples. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in robot-assisted ESD (RESD) than in conventional ESD (CESD) (20.1±4.1 minutes vs 34.3±8.3 minutes, p<0.05). The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the RESD group than in the CESD group (36.8±9.2 mm2/min vs 18.1±4.7 mm2/min, p<0.05). The blind dissection rate was also significantly lower in the RESD group (12.8%±3.4% vs 35.1%±3.9%, p<0.05). In an in vivo porcine feasibility study, the robotic device was attached to a colonoscope and successfully inserted into the proximal colon without damaging the colonic wall, and ESD was successfully performed.Conclusions: The dissection speed and safety profile improved significantly with the retractable RESD. Thus, our robotic device has the potential to provide simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction during colonic ESD.

| S-EPMC11249931 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study.

Project description:ObjectivesEndoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR-L and ESD for small rectal NETs.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR-L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome.ResultsEighty-nine patients were treated by ESMR-L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR-L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less-experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR-L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27).ConclusionsFor small rectal NETs, both ESMR-L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR-L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less-experienced endoscopists.

| S-EPMC9478042 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data