Dataset Information

Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR.

Material and methods

In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications.

Results

Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation.

Discussion

In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.

SUBMITTER: Krutzenbichler I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8195906 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHumane treatment requires the provision of appropriate sedation and analgesia during medical diagnosis and treatment. However, limited information is available about the status of procedural analgesic interventions in Chinese hospitals. Therefore, a nationwide survey was established to identify challenges and propose potential improvement strategies.MethodsForty-three members of the Pain Group of Chinese Society of Anesthesiology established and reviewed the questionnaire, which included (1) general information on the hospitals, (2) the sedation/analgesia rate in gastrointestinal endoscopy, labor, flexible bronchoscopy, hysteroscopy in China, (3) staff assignments, (4) drug use for procedural analgesic interventions, and (5) difficulties in procedural analgesic interventions. The data were obtained using an online questionnaire sent to the chief anesthesiologists of Chinese hospitals above Grade II or members of the Pain Group of Chinese Society of Anesthesiology.ResultsValid and complete questionnaires were received from 2198 (44.0%) hospitals, of which 64.5% were Grade III. The overall sedation/analgesia rates were as follows: gastroscopy (50.6%), colonoscopy (53.7%), ERCP (65.9%), induced abortion (67.5%), labor (42.3%), hysteroscopy (67.0%) and fiber bronchoscopy (52.6%). Compared with Grade II hospitals, Grade III hospitals had a higher proportion of procedural analgesic interventions services except for induced abortion. On average (median [IQR]), each anesthesiologist performed 5.7 [2.3-11.4] cases per day, with 7.3 [3.2-13.6] performed in Grade III hospitals and 3.4 [1.8-6.8] performed in Grade II hospitals (z = -7.065, p < 0.001).ConclusionsChinese anesthesiologists have made great efforts to achieve procedural analgesic interventions, as evidenced by the increased rate. The uneven health care provided by hospitals at different levels and in different regions and the lack of anesthesiologists are the main barriers to optimal procedural analgesic interventions.