Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

16 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Underwater reopenable clip closure of mucosal defects after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

ABSTRACT:

SUBMITTER: Nomura T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7651752 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Mucosal defect closure after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the reopenable-clip over the line method.

Project description:IntroductionClosure of mucosal defects after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is important to prevent postoperative adverse events. Previously, we devised an underwater reopenable-clip closure method for effective closure of mucosal defects under endoscopic guidance within the field of view. Recently, the usefulness of a method using a clip with a line passing through an accessory channel to close a mucosal defect has been reported. We also described a reopenable-clip over the line method (ROLM) to completely close margin and the muscular layers of mucosal defects using a clip line.Case reportOur patient was a 70-year-old woman with a 40-mm duodenal tumor in the descending portion of the duodenum. The lesion was completely resected using ESD . In the result, the mucosal defect size was approximately 50 mm, representing about 3/4 of the duodenal circumference. A clip-line closure was performed using ROLM to close the mucosal defect's margins completely. An additional clip was applied to close the mucosal defect after ESD completely. Subsequently, the line was fixed with a modified locking-clip technique, closed, and cut with endoscopic scissors. The patient was discharged without any adverse events 9 days after the duodenal ESD.DiscussionMucosal defect closure after duodenal ESD using ROLM is a novel method that can reliably close mucosal defects.

| S-EPMC8264231 | biostudies-literature

Usefulness of step-by-step double-clip-with-line method in duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8276354 | biostudies-literature

Successful removal of duodenal submucosal tumors with endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6119220 | biostudies-literature

Successful duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using multiple clip-and-thread traction for a large tumor located in the duodenal bulb.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8058531 | biostudies-literature

Clip with line-pulley securing technique with plastic detachable snare for endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure.

Project description:Video 1Clip with line-pulley securing technique with plastic detachable snare for endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure.

| S-EPMC10928135 | biostudies-literature

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Project description:Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature

Minimally invasive management of large duodenal lipoma: endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of large duodenal lipomas (DLs) of ≥2 cm between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).MethodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of large DLs from June 2017 to March 2021 at our hospital. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, and follow-up endoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsTwenty-three patients (12 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years were included. The median tumor size was 28.4 ± 13.3 mm. ESD was performed in 19 patients, and EFTR was performed in 4. Complete resection was achieved in 21 patients. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ESD than EFTR group. Four patients in the EFTR group developed a fever; no other adverse events occurred. No patients required surgical intervention. During the average follow-up of 21.1 months, no residual tumor, recurrence, or metastasis was observed.ConclusionBoth ESD and EFTR provide minimally invasive, localized treatment of selected DLs. ESD might have some advantages in resecting large DLs in terms of procedure time and hospitalization.

| S-EPMC8721732 | biostudies-literature

Dynamic and multifocal clip and band countertraction for endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7569738 | biostudies-literature

Treatment of large duodenal duplication cyst using endoscopic submucosal dissection knife.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC5992263 | biostudies-literature

Current Challenge: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors.

Project description:Opinion statementWith the widespread use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in recent years, the detection rate of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is increasing. Most SNADETs are early-stage adenocarcinoma or benign conditions, including adenoma. Therefore, endoscopic resection is desirable from the perspective of quality of life. However, endoscopic resection for SNADETs has not yet been established. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the most promising method for the treatment of SNADETs, because ESD provides a high rate of en bloc resection and a low rate of recurrence regardless of the tumor size. However, the difficulty of the procedure and a high rate of severe adverse events including perforation and bleeding have become major problems. Various preventive countermeasures for adverse events, such as use of specific devices, endoscope stabilization methods, and endoscopic closure of the post-ESD ulcer using clips, are reported to reduce the risk of the adverse events of ESD for SNADETs. This article reviews and highlights the current state of ESD for SNADETs and new challenges towards safe and effective ESD.

| S-EPMC7588384 | 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