Band ligation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection of an intradiverticular polyp.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zamora-Sifuentes J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947368 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7730507 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5991140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate if traction-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (TA-EMR) is feasible and if it enables en bloc resection of colorectal lesions.MethodsSeven patients with a total of 12 colorectal adenomas were prospectively enrolled. All lesions were removed by TA-EMR: one hemostatic clip tied to a white silk suture was applied to the base of the lesion to allow traction through the working channel of the colonoscope. A conventional polypectomy snare was mounted over the suture and the lesion was pulled into the snare and resected in one piece.ResultsAll 12 lesions (nine sessile) were resected en bloc with free lateral and vertical margins by using this novel technique, including five lesions (5/12, 41.6%) in less-accessible positions, where TA-EMR enabled complete visualization of the base before resection. Mean longest lesion and specimen sizes were 9 mm (range: 6-25 mm) and 11 mm in diameter (range: 7-17 mm), respectively. No serious procedure-related complications were observed.ConclusionTA-EMR through the endoscope using a hemostatic clip and suture material is technically feasible. Visualization of colorectal lesions in less-accessible locations can be improved.
| S-EPMC2988240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of small gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer (SMT-MPs) remains a subject of debate. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently considered the optimal treatment for resection. However, high expenses, complex procedures, and the risk of complications have limited its application. Our previously proposed novel operation, precutting endoscopic band ligation (precutting EBL), has been demonstrated in a long-term, single-arm study to be an effective and safe technique for removing small gastric SMTs. However, the absence of a pathological examination and the potential for delayed perforation have raised concerns. Thus, we modified the precutting EBL by adding endoscopic resection to the snare after ligation and closure, yielding the precutting endoscopic band ligation-assisted resection (precutting EBLR). Moreover, the initial pilot study confirmed the safety and efficacy of the proposed approach and we planned a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to further validate its clinical feasibility.MethodsThis was a prospective, single-center, open-label, parallel group, and randomized controlled trial. Approximately 40 patients with SMT-MPs will be included in this trial. The patients included were allocated to two groups: ESD and precutting EBLR. The basic clinical data of the patients were collected in detail. To better quantify the difference between ESD and precutting EBLR, the primary outcome was set as the operation duration. The secondary outcomes included total operation cost and hospitalization, intraoperative adverse events, and postoperative recurrence. The primary outcome was tested for superiority, while the secondary outcomes were tested for noninferiority. SPSS is commonly used for statistical analysis.DiscussionThis study was designed to validate the feasibility of a novel operation for removing gastric SMT-MPs. To intuitively assess this phenomenon, the operation durations of precutting EBLR and ESD were compared, and other outcomes were also recorded comprehensively.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200065473 . Registered on November 5, 2022.
| S-EPMC10788014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sistrunk procedure is the standard method for thyroglossal duct cyst resection. While this procedure is successful and safe, it results in postoperative scars on the front of neck. We propose a total transoral technique without external incision that starts with careful separation of the floor of the mouth and genioglossus muscle followed by the exact localization of the cyst using methylene blue. Simultaneously, the hyoid bone connected to the cyst and tract was removed. Finally, routine hemostasis is conducted, and the operative cavity is closed. All patients who received this operation in our department recovered successfully without experiencing severe intraoperative or postoperative complications.
| S-EPMC8894260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Nonexposed endoscopic wall inversion surgery for local resection of microscopic residual tumor after endoscopic submucosal dissection.
| S-EPMC11009435 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, necessitates effective and early detection and treatment strategies. Endoscopic resection techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have evolved significantly, enhancing the treatment of gastric neoplasms. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a widely used technique for the resection of duodenal and colorectal neoplasms. However, the feasibility and efficacy of UEMR in the stomach are not well established. This retrospective observational study, conducted at a tertiary medical center, evaluated the efficacy and safety of UEMR in 81 patients with gastric neoplasms. Thus, it indicates that UEMR is a highly effective and safe technique for managing small to medium-sized gastric neoplasms, achieving 100% en bloc and 93.8% R0 resection rates with a low incidence of complications. Moreover, the procedure time was found to be significantly shorter for UEMR compared to ESD, thus highlighting its efficiency. While UEMR demonstrates high safety and efficacy, it is not suitable for all patients, with some requiring conversion to ESD as a treatment option. Despite the promising results, broader validation through extensive and randomized trials is recommended to establish UEMR as a standard approach in gastric cancer management.
| S-EPMC10931230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive, specialized endoscopic technique that is useful in resecting superficial gastrointestinal lesions that are unable to be removed by standard polypectomy. This is typically accomplished using a submucosal injection that lifts the lesion away from the muscularis propria to allow for safe resection of the polyp, either via piecemeal or en bloc resection. Over the years, several techniques exist to perform EMR including conventional EMR or hot EMR, cold EMR and underwater EMR. Despite its established advantages and safety over conventional techniques such as surgery, the adoption of endoscopic resection (and thus the education and training of gastroenterology trainees) is lagging. The goal of this article is to offer a comprehensive review of the basic principles of colonic EMR. We review the concepts of optical diagnosis including the various polyp classification systems available to determine the polyp morphology and histology. We also discuss the technical aspects of performing colonic EMR. We also outline the common adverse events associated with EMR including bleeding, perforation, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual or recurrent polyps, and discuss preventative measures that can be taken to mitigate adverse events. Lastly, we offer practical tips for trainees who want to undertake EMR in their clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10432230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough recent guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) ≤10 mm, there is no consensus on which endoscopic modality should be performed. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of modified cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) methods for the treatment of rectal NET ≤10 mm.MethodsA randomized noninferiority trial comparing mEMR-C and ESD was conducted. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate; the secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, operation time, complications, and so on. Subgroup analyses and follow-up were also performed.ResultsNinety patients were enrolled, and 79 patients with pathologically confirmed rectal NET were finally analyzed, including 38 cases of mEMR-C and 41 cases of ESD. Histological complete resection rate was 97.4% in the mEMR-C group and 92.7% in the ESD group. The noninferiority of mEMR-C compared with that of ESD was confirmed because the absolute difference was 4.7% (2-sided 90% confidence interval, -3.3% to 12.2%; P = 0.616). En bloc resection and successful removal of rectal NET were achieved in all patients. Advantages of mEMR-C over ESD included shorter operation time (8.89 ± 4.58 vs 24.8 ± 9.14 minutes, P < 0.05) and lower hospitalization cost ($2,233.76 ± $717.70 vs $2,987.27 ± $871.81, P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were recorded in 4 patients who received mEMR-C and 2 patients in the ESD group (11.5% vs 4.9%, P = 0.509), which were all well managed using endoscopy. Similar findings were observed when subgroup analysis was performed.DiscussionmEMR-C is noninferior to ESD with a similar complete resection rate. In addition, mEMR-C had shorter procedure duration time and lower hospitalization costs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982264.
| S-EPMC10508268 | biostudies-literature