Salvage resection of recurrent polyp after polypectomy on the colorectal anastomosis using endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wada M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5990976 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7729848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1.
| S-EPMC8351124 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7426889 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6317950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the treatment effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC).DesignMeta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched three electronic databases, including PubMed, EmBase and the Cochrane library for studies published with inception to January 2018. The eligible studies should be evaluated for the efficacy and safety of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC. The summary ORs and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were employed as effect estimates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of single study on overall analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for investigated outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC with specific subsets.ResultsEighteen studies, with a total of 6723 patients with EGC, were included in final analysis. The summary ORs indicated that patients with EGC who received ESD were associated with an increased incidence of en bloc resection (OR: 9.00; 95% CI: 6.66 to 12.17; p<0.001), complete resection (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 5.04 to 14.09; p<0.001) and curative resection (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.85 to 4.61; p<0.001) when compared with EMR. Furthermore, ESD was associated with lower risk of local recurrence (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p<0.001). In addition, there was no significant difference between ESD and EMR for the risk of bleeding (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.80; p=0.203). Though, ESD was correlated with greater risk of perforation (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.48 to 4.39; p=0.001), and longer operation time (SMD: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.13 to 2.10; p=0.026) as compared with EMR. Additionally, several different features observed in included studies and patients could bias the effectiveness of ESD versus EMR in patients with EGC.ConclusionsESD is superior than EMR for en bloc resection, complete resection, curative resection and local recurrence, while it increased perforation risk and longer operation time.
| S-EPMC7008428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions in Western communities is unclear and its adoption is still limited. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated with colorectal ESD in a tertiary Western center. Patients and methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated by ESD for superficial colorectal lesions between February 2011 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were en-bloc and R0 resection rates, procedural time, adverse events (AEs), and need for surgery. The curative resection rate was assessed for submucosal invasive lesions. Results A total of 327 consecutive patients, median age 69 years (IQR 60-76); 201 men (61.5 %) were included in the analysis. Of the lesions, 90.8 % were resected in an en-bloc fashion. The rate of R0 resection was 83.1 % (217/261) and 44.0 % (29/66) for standard and hybrid ESD techniques, respectively. Submucosal invasion and piecemeal resection independently predicted R1 resections. A total of 18(5.5 %) intra-procedural AEs (perforation:11, bleeding:7) and 12(3.7 %) post-procedural AEs occurred (perforation:2, bleeding: 10). Eighteen adenoma recurrences per 1,000 person-years (15cases, 5.6 %) were detected after a median follow-up time of 36 months. All recurrences were detected within 12 months. No carcinoma recurrences were observed. R1 resection status and intra-procedural AEs independently predicted recurrences with seven vs 150 recurrences per 1,000 person-years in the R0 vs R1 group, respectively. Conclusions Colorectal ESD is a safe and effective option for managing superficial colorectal neoplasia in a Western setting, with short and long-terms outcomes comparable to Eastern studies. En-bloc R0 resection and absence of intra-procedural AEs are associated with reduced risk of recurrence.
| S-EPMC8759944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Resection of a gastric lesion using Topflight ESD.
| S-EPMC10751465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions was invented in Japan, but postoperative management including hospital stay has not been reconsidered due to the Japanese insurance system. To explore appropriate postoperative management after colorectal ESD, we reviewed short-term outcomes after ESD in non-selected consecutive patients.MethodsPatients who underwent colorectal ESD from April 2013 to September 2020 in one institution were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events stratified by the Clavien-Dindo classification with five grades. A logistic regression model with the Firth procedure was applied to investigate predictors of severe (grade III or greater) adverse events.ResultsA total of 330 patients (female 40%, male 60%; median 72 years; IQR 65-80 years) with colorectal lesions (median 30 mm, IQR 23-40 mm; colon 77%, rectum 23%; serrated lesion 4%, adenoma 47%, mucosal cancer 30%, invasive cancer 18%) was evaluated. The en bloc resection rate was 97%. The median dissection time was 58 min (IQR: 38-86). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 3%, all successfully treated by endoscopic clipping. No delayed perforations occurred. Postprocedural bleeding occurred in 3% on days 1-10 (median day 2); all were controlled endoscopically. Severe adverse events included only delayed bleeding. In analyzing severe adverse events in a multivariate logistic regression model with the Firth procedure, antithrombotic agent use (p = 0.016) and rectal lesions (p = 0.0010) were both significant predictors.ConclusionsNo serious adverse events occurred in this series. Four days of hospitalization may be too long for the majority of patients after ESD.
| S-EPMC9307737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsAlthough second-look endoscopy (SLE) is frequently performed after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to prevent bleeding, no studies have reported SLE findings after colorectal ESD. This study aimed to investigate SLE findings and their role in preventing delayed bleeding after colorectal ESD.MethodsPost-ESD ulcer appearances were divided into coagulation (with or without remnant minor vessels) and clip closure groups. SLE findings were categorized according to the Forrest classification (high-risk ulcer stigma [type I and IIa] and low-risk ulcer stigma [type IIb, IIc, III, or clip closure]), and risk factors for high-risk ulcer stigma were analyzed.ResultsAmong the 375 cases investigated, SLEs were performed in 171 (45.6%) patients. The incidences of high-risk ulcer stigma and low-risk stigma were 5.3% (9/171) and 94.7% (162/171), respectively. During SLE, endoscopic hemostasis was performed more frequently in the high-risk ulcer stigma group than in the lowrisk ulcer stigma group (44.4% [4/9] vs. 1.9% [3/162], respectively; p < 0.001), but most of the endoscopic hemostasis in the high-risk ulcer stigma group (3/4, 75.0%) were prophylactic hemostasis. Post-ESD delayed bleeding occurred in three (0.8%) patients belonging to the SLE group, of which, one patient was from the high-risk stigma group and two were from the low-risk stigma group.ConclusionThe incidence of high-risk ulcer stigma during SLE was low, and delayed bleeding occurred in, both, high-risk and low-risk groups of SLE. SLEs performed after colorectal ESD may not be effective in preventing delayed bleeding, and further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of SLE in post-colorectal ESD.
| S-EPMC8435493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically demanding, and the traction offered by gravity, cap, or clip-with-line during conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection remains unsatisfactory. Robotic systems are still under development and are expensive. We proposed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with strong and adjustable traction offered by snaring the lesion with additional scope. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the novel double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study that reviewed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection, and size, location, morphology, and pathology between groups were compared. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a referral endoscopy center in a local hospital. PATIENTS: This study included patients with colorectal lesions receiving double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection and matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pathological completeness, procedure time, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifteen double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures, with 11 lesions located in the proximal colon with a median size of 40 mm, were performed. The median procedure time of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection was 32.45 (interquartile range, 16.03–38.20) minutes. The time required for second scope insertion was 2.57 (interquartile range, 0.95–6.75) minutes; for snaring, 3.03 (interquartile range, 2.12–6.62) minutes; and for actual endoscopic submucosal dissection, 28.23 (interquartile range, 7.90–37.00) minutes. All lesions were resected completely. No major complication was encountered. The procedure time was significantly shorter than that of 14 matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissections (54.61 [interquartile range, 33.11–97.25] min; p = 0.021). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center, single-operator, retrospective case-controlled study with limited cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the feasibility of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction to shorten procedure time and to simplify endoscopic submucosal dissection. Additional trials are required.
| S-EPMC9172887 | biostudies-literature