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:AIM:To evaluate if traction-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (TA-EMR) is feasible and if it enables en bloc resection of colorectal lesions. METHODS:Seven 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. RESULTS:All 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. CONCLUSION:TA-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: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:Background/Aims:The "Resect and Discard" strategy is a potentially useful strategy. At present, only the lesion size and accuracy of diagnosis are cited as considerations for clinical adoption of this strategy. On the other hand, histopathology of the resected specimens after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) reveals often an unclear or positive-margin status, implying Incomplete Polyp Resection (IPR). If IPR indeed increased the risk of local recurrence, histopathological evaluation of the margin would be indispensable and clinical adoption of this strategy is difficult. The aim of this study is to verify the association between IPR and the risk of local recurrence. Methods:The 1872 polyps and 603 EMR cases in 597 patients who had EMR between May 2013 and May 2014 were enrolled. The local recurrence rate until 3 years after the EMR in cases with the target lesions of the "Resect and Discard" strategy was determined in the negative-margin and IPR groups. Results:The final analysis was performed using the data of 1092 polyps, and 222 were categorized into the IPR group. There were no cases of recurrence in either of the groups. Conclusion:This is the world's first report conducted to examine the correlation of IPR and the local recurrence rate for clinical practice of "Resect and Discard" strategy. There is the possibility that pathological evaluation of the margins after EMR in patients with small polyps can be skipped.
| S-EPMC6341238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Esophageal fibrovascular polyp is rare in esophageal neoplasms and usually very large. Here, we present a case of giant esophageal fibrovascular polyp. The patient had dysphagia and choking sensation at presentation. She underwent positron emission-computed tomography (PET-CT), endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, and fine needle aspiration. She was clinically diagnosed as having an esophageal benign tumor and underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection. The polyp was successfully resected; however, the process was very difficult, and the lesion was too large to pass through the upper esophagus. Finally, we removed the lesion surgically. Fibrovascular polyps are often large, and if endoscopic resection is chosen, it is necessary to consider the difficulties that may be encountered during resection, before initiating treatment.
| S-EPMC8408901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUNDThe incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is rapidly increasing because of the frequent use of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancers. However, the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal NETs are still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the rates of histologically complete resection (H-CR) and recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for rectal NETs.METHODSA retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent EMR for rectal NETs between January 2002 and March 2015 at Seoul National University Hospital. Primary outcomes were H-CR and recurrence rates after endoscopic resection. H-CR was defined as the absence of tumor invasion in the lateral and deep margins of resected specimens.RESULTSAmong 277 patients, 243 (88%) were treated with conventional EMR, 23 (8%) with EMR using a dual-channel endoscope, and 11 (4%) with EMR after precutting. The median tumor size was 4.96 mm (range, 1-22) in diameter, and 264 (95%) lesions were confined to the mucosa and submucosal layer. The en-bloc resection rate was 99% and all patients achieved endoscopically complete resection. The H-CR rates were 75, 74, and 73% for conventional EMR, EMR using a dual-channel endoscope, and EMR after precutting, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that H-CR was associated with tumor size regardless of endoscopic treatment modalities (p?=?0.023). Of the 277 patients, 183 (66%) underwent at least 1 endoscopic follow-up. Three (2%) of these 183 patients had tumor recurrence, which was diagnosed at a median of 62.5 months (range 19-98) after endoscopic resection. There was 1 case of disease-related death, which occurred 167 months after endoscopic treatment because of bone marrow failure that resulted from tumor metastasis.CONCLUSIONSAlthough the en-bloc resection rate was 99% in rectal NETs, H-CR rates were 72-74% for various EMR procedures. H-CR may be associated with tumor size regardless of endoscopic treatment modalities.
| S-EPMC5987588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection-cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device-while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC8596214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was originally described in 1973 and is currently a popular practice used in treating polyps, small adenomas, and early cancers. Although the safety of EMR has been proven in numerous studies, complications occur occasionally. We report a case in which the patient complained of severe upper abdominal pain and who was diagnosed with acute appendicitis after colorectal EMR. The patient recovered well after surgery. Cautious observation is necessary when resuming oral intake in patients who undergo colorectal EMR and who complain of postoperative abdominal pain. Observation is especially important for patients with a fecalith that may have originally existed in the appendix or in the colon near the appendix.
| S-EPMC9112757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has been used to achieve hemostasis in patients with colonic diverticular bleeding. The safety and effectiveness of EBL when performed by non-expert endoscopists have not been sufficiently verified. This study aimed to elucidate the feasibility of the EBL technique when performed by non-expert endoscopists and of considering EBL as a standard treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding.A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral center in Tokyo, Japan, between June 2009 and October 2014. A total of 95 patients treated with EBL were included in the study and were divided into two groups according to whether they had been treated by expert or non-expert endoscopists. Comorbidities, medications, shock index, hemoglobin level on admission, location of the bleeding diverticula, rate of bowel preparation, procedure time, and EBL-associated adverse events were evaluated in each group. Multivariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate factors related to EBL procedure time, which is the time elapsed between marking the site of bleeding with hemoclips and completion of the band release.A total of 47 (49.5 %) procedures were performed by expert endoscopists. In a bivariate analysis, the median EBL procedure times in the expert and non-expert groups were 15 minutes (range 4 - 45) and 11 minutes (range 4 - 36), respectively (P = 0.03). When a multivariate linear regression model was used, EBL for right-sided diverticula was the factor most significantly affecting EBL procedure time. No adverse events were encountered.EBL can be safely and effectively performed by non-expert endoscopists. A right-sided location of diverticula was the factor most significantly affecting EBL procedure time.
| S-EPMC4751002 | biostudies-other