内镜治疗早期肠道肿瘤相关问题探讨

内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)与内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)是消化道内镜手术中的两种重要手术方式,目前基于两者又出现了改良的新术式：ESD-S(ESD with snare,ESD联合圈套器法)与EMR-P术(EMR with precutting,预环切EMR法)。这四种手术方式在治疗结直肠肿瘤中具有各自不同的优缺点,如较高的完全切除率,较低的并发症风险等。综合近几年国际发表的临床试验,笔者认为：对于直径小于20 mm的结直肠肿瘤,可根据肿瘤的情况,选择ESD术、ESD-S术,EMR-P术或者EMR术。对于直径大于20 mm的肿瘤,ESD术与ESD-S术由于其较低的复发率与较高的完全切除率,可以作为处理此类肿瘤的首选。如上述两种术式风险较高,可以采用EMR-P进行处理。EMR术由于完全切除率较低,复发率偏高,而大于20 mm肿瘤恶变风险较高,不适合用于这类肿瘤的切除。     

不同亚型结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤临床治疗效果分析

[目的]回顾性分析不同亚型结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(LSTs)患者经内镜下内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)和内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)治疗的疗效。[方法]选取我院消化科收治的92例结直肠LSTs患者进行研究,其中采用EMR治疗患者38例(EMR组),ESD治疗患者54例(ESD组),观察2种治疗方法分别对LSTs 4种亚型治疗情况。[结果]EMR组、ESD组患者在性别、分型、病变部位及病变大小、病理类型方面比较,差异无统计学意义;EMR、ESD治疗颗粒均一型(LST-G-H)组手术操作时间均较短,与结节混合型(LST-G-NM)、假凹陷型(LST-NG-PD)组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05),扁平隆起型(LST-NG-F)组操作时间短于LST-NG-PD组(P0.05);EMR治疗LST-G-H组整块切除率、完全切除率较高为71.43%、57.14%,LST-NG-PD组较低为42.86%、28.57%;ESD治疗LST-G-H、LST-NG-F、LST-NG-PD组整块切除率为100.00%,LST-G-H、LST-NG-F组完全切除率为100.00%,而LST-NG-PD完全切除率较低;EMR治疗后,LST-NG-PD出现1例术中穿孔,LST-G-NM出现1例出血,LST-G-NM、LST-NG-PD复发率较高,达31.58%和42.86%;ESD治疗后,LST-NG-PD穿孔率、出血率、复发率都较高均为25.00%,ESD治疗组手术操作时间、整块切除率、完全切除率均高于EMR治疗组(P0.05),而术后复发率低于EMR治疗组(P0.05)。[结论]EMR、ESD治疗LST-G-H操作时间均短,EMR治疗术后并发症少,复发率高,ESD治疗术后并发症多,复发率低,临床应根据不同分型选择合适的治疗方法。     

内镜黏膜下剥离术联合圈套器法对巨大结直肠病变的疗效探讨

[目的]探讨内镜黏膜下剥离术联合圈套器(Endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare,ESD with snare,ESD-S)在切除巨大结直肠病变(≥30mm)中的有效性、安全性。[方法]回顾性分析行ESD治疗的76例巨大结直肠病变患者的临床资料,其中采用传统ESD法27例(ESD组),ESD-S法49例(ESD-S组),通过对以上2种手术方法的完整切除率、整块切除率、手术并发症以及手术时间进行统计分析比较。[结果]ESD组、ESD-S组手术切除病变的成功率均为100.0%,ESD组的病灶整块切除率为100.0%(27/27),完整切除率为96.3%(26/27),病变平均长径为(42±11)mm,平均手术时间为(78.8±61.4)min,1例患者术后追加外科手术。ESD-S组的病灶完整切除率为95.9%(47/49),整块切除率为81.6%(40/49),病变平均长径为(48±18)mm,平均手术时间为(69.1±55.4)min,1例患者在手术中出现难以控制的出血,转至外科行肠系膜栓塞术。2例患者发生术中小穿孔,予钛夹夹闭。2例患者追加外科手术治疗。ESD组病变的整块切除率显著高于ESD-S组(P0.05),而2组的完整切除率比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);在手术时间方面,ESD组较ESD-S组延长(P0.05)。[结论]ESD-S能安全有效治疗巨大结直肠病变,且能缩短手术时间,降低手术难度,但整块切除率较低,对于经验丰富的内镜医师来说,传统ESD仍应作为首选。     

内镜黏膜下剥离术对大直径结直肠LSTs病变的远期疗效分析

目的探讨内镜黏膜下剥离术对大直径结直肠LSTs病变的远期疗效分析。方法回顾性分析我院2009年1月至2015年3月收治的病变直径15 mm的LSTs患者79例,根据治疗方法的不同,分为EMR及ESD组,对比两组的操作时间、整块切除率、完全切除率、并发症发生率、平均随访时间及复发率。结果 ESD组的操作时间、整块切除率、完全切除率均明显高于EMR组(P0.001)。EMR组发生迟发性出血1例;ESD组发生迟发性出血1例,穿孔1例。两组的并发症发生率比较无统计学差异(P0.05)。两组平均随访时间对比差异无统计学意义(P0.05),ESD组的复发率明显低于EMR组(P0.05)。本研究的12例复发病例均接受再次EMR或ESD治疗。结论 ESD对于直径15 mm的结直肠LSTs病变远期效果较好,但其手术时间明显高于EMR,对年纪较大、合并心血管、呼吸系统疾病患者存在潜在危险,需根据患者实际情况进行选择。     

预切开内镜下黏膜切除术在治疗结直肠侧向发育性肿瘤中的临床效果

目的探讨预切开内镜下黏膜切除术(Precutting-EMR)在治疗结直肠侧向发育性肿瘤(laterally spreading tumors,LSTs)中的临床效果。方法对32例直径在15～30 mm的结直肠LSTs患者中进行了Precutting-EMR治疗,观察整块切除率、完全切除率和并发症发生率。结果 32例患者中,整块切除者29例(90. 6%),病理证实为完全切除者28例(87. 5%)。对于21～30 mm的病灶,整块切除率和完全切除率分别为87. 0%、82. 6%。仅有1例(3. 1%)病灶发生迟发性出血,所有治疗均未发生术中穿孔。圈套器的正确使用是保证Precutting-EMR效果的关键。结论 Precutting-EMR技术降低了结直肠LSTs内镜下切除的技术难度,同时保证了内镜下治疗的效果,值得在中小型医院推广。     

内镜治疗结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤疗效观察

背景:结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(LST)是结肠镜检查中常见的肿瘤性病变之一,癌变率较高。目的:比较内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)和内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)治疗结直肠LST的疗效和安全性。方法:2016年10月—2018年12月在上海市宝山区中西医结合医院确诊的88例结直肠LST患者随机分为两组,分别接受EMR(病灶直径大于2 cm者采用分片EMR)和ESD治疗,比较两组操作时间、并发症发生率、整块切除率和1年随访期内复发情况。结果:所有患者均完整切除病灶。EMR组操作时间优于ESD组[(23.73±6.19) min对(65.13±13.76) min],ESD组整块切除率(97.7%对59.1%)和复发率(11.4%对31.8%)优于EMR组,差异均有统计学意义(P 0.05)。两组术中穿孔、术后出血发生率无明显差异(P 0.05)。EMR组复发患者多为病灶直径大于2 cm者。结论:对于结直肠LST的内镜治疗,应根据具体临床情况选择治疗方式。EMR操作时间较短,但直径大于2 cm的病灶更适合采用ESD治疗。     

内镜黏膜下剥离术和内镜黏膜切除术治疗胃食管连接部癌前病变及早癌的疗效比较

目的 将内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)和内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)进行比较,评价ESD治疗胃食管连接部(GEJ)癌前病变及早癌的有效性及安全性.方法 分析28例经ESD治疗和51例经EMR治疗的GEJ癌前病变及早癌患者的临床资料,比较两种方法病灶整块切除率、组织学治愈性切除率、手术时间、并发症、复发率等.结果 ESD整块切除率为92.9％ (26/28),治愈切除率为78.6％(22/28)均优于EMR组的45.1％(23/51)和43.1％(22/51),两者差异有统计学意义(P均＜0.05).局部原位复发率ESD组为3.6％(1/28),明显低于EMR组的19.6％( 10/51) (P ＜0.05).术后延迟出血、穿孔、狭窄等严重并发症的发生ESD组与EMR组之间差异无统计学意义.平均手术时间ESD为(64.3±27.1)min,明显长于EMR( 27.6±14.1)min(P ＜0.05).结论 ESD和EMR相比,整块切除率及组织学治愈性切除率高,局部复发率低,是治疗GEJ癌前病变及早癌更为安全有效的方法.     

橡皮圈组织夹内牵引辅助在内镜黏膜下 剥离术治疗结直肠病变中的应用（含视频）

目的评价橡皮圈组织夹内牵引辅助内镜黏膜下剥离术（rubber band and clip facilitated endoscopic submucosal dissection, RAC ESD）治疗结直肠病变的安全性和有效性。方法采用回顾性队列研究方法,分析2018年9月—2019年8月间在北京大学第一医院内镜中心接受内镜黏膜下剥离术（endoscopic submucosal dissection,ESD)治疗,符合纳入和排除标准的115例结直肠病变患者,依照ESD手术方式分为RAC ESD组（n=34）及传统ESD组（n=81）,比较两组间手术时间、单位时间切除面积、整块切除率、完全切除率、治愈性切除率、并发症发生率及肿瘤复发率等指标。结果RAC ESD组中位标本面积632(753) cm2,中位手术时间400(550) min,中位单位时间切除面积014(020) cm2/min。传统ESD组中位标本面积471(502) cm2,中位手术时间500(500) min,中位单位时间切除面积009(007) cm2/min。RAC ESD组标本面积略大于传统ESD组,手术时间略短于传统ESD组,但差异均无统计学意义（P均＞005）。RAC ESD组单位时间切除面积明显大于传统ESD组（P=0008）。RAC ESD组整块切除率、完全切除率及治愈性切除率分别为1000%（34/34）、1000%（34/34）及971%（33/34）,传统ESD组分别为1000%（81/81）、963%（78/81）和914%（74/81）。两组均无操作相关并发症发生。经过（100±55）个月随访,两组均无局部复发。结论RAC ESD治疗结直肠病变可提高手术效率,安全有效。     

预切开内镜黏膜切除术治疗结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤的指征分析（含视频）

目的探讨预切开内镜黏膜切除术(pre-cut-endoscopic mucosal resection,pre-cut-EMR)治疗结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(laterally spreading tumors,LSTs)的临床指征。方法回顾性分析2014年1月—2019年6月在无锡市第二人民医院和复旦大学附属中山医院接受pre-cut-EMR治疗的结直肠LSTs患者临床资料,研究分析病灶临床特征与手术成功率及并发症的关系。结果共132例结直肠LSTs病变纳入研究,LSTs内镜分型中颗粒均一型29例（22.0%）,结节混合型43例（32.6%）,扁平隆起型58例（43.9%）,假凹陷型2例（1.5%）。LSTs病灶直径（2.3±1.5）cm（2.0～5.0 cm）。病灶位于直肠36例(27.3%),乙状结肠15例(11.4%),降结肠10例(7.6%),结肠脾曲17例(12.9%),横结肠21例(15.9%),结肠肝曲24例(18.2%),升结肠6例 (4.5%),盲肠3例(2.3%)。LSTs病理结果：低级别上皮内瘤变58例(43.9%),高级别上皮内瘤变69例(52.3%),黏膜内癌2例(1.5%),癌变3例(2.3%)。132例LSTs病灶应用pre-cut-EMR治疗,手术时间（25.3±13.6）min（20～65 min）,病灶整块切除率95.5%(126/132),完整切除率100.0%（132/132）。术中穿孔2例（1.5%）,均位于乙状结肠,病灶直径分别为4.0 cm、4.5 cm。术中即刻出血12例（9.0%),术后迟发出血2例(1.5%)。术后随访6～24个月,术后创面愈合良好,随访期间病灶未见残留及复发。结论内镜下应用pre-cut-EMR治疗直径<4.0 cm的结直肠LSTs病变是安全有效的。     

内镜下黏膜切除术和内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗直肠类癌的对照研究

目的 评估内镜下黏膜切除术(EMR)和内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)治疗直肠类癌的有效性及安全性.方法 回顾性总结24例26处EMR治疗(EMR组)和19例20处ESD治疗(ESD组)的直肠类癌患者的临床资料,对比分析两组在病灶大小、手术时间、病灶整块切除率、组织病理学治愈性切除率、并发症及随访结果方面的差异.结果 ESD组术前超声内镜测量的直径大小为(7.4 ±5.3)mm,明显大于EMR组的(5.6 ±2.1)mm(P ＜0.05);ESD组手术时间为(32.6±10.5)min,明显长于EMR组的(8.9±6.3)min(P ＜0.05);EMR组和ESD组病灶均一次性完整切除,整块切除率均为100.0％;EMR组的组织病理学治愈性切除率为100.0％(26/26),略高于ESD组的95.0％ (19/20) (P＞0.05);EMR术后出血、穿孔并发症发生率为15.3％ (4/26),明显高于ESD组的5.0％ (1/20) (P＜0.05);两组在术后复查随访,均未发现局部复发.结论 对于直径小于7 mm的病灶应用EMR方法可以有效完整地切除病灶,并缩短手术时间;而对于直径大于7 mm和经过多次活检或局部切除后内镜下注射抬举征阴性的病灶,采取ESD的手术方式,方能得到比较满意的治疗效果.     

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Endoscopic Resection Methods for Treating Colorectal Neoplasia

Background/Aim

Endoscopic treatments of colorectal neoplasms have yet to be standardized. This study aimed to compare efficacy and tolerability of different endoscopic resection methods for colorectal epithelial tumors.

Methods

Patients with non-pedunculated colorectal tumors undergoing endoscopic treatments were consecutively enrolled, and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The resection methods were classified into three groups: endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential precutting (EMR-P), endoscopic submucosal dissection with snaring (ESD-S), and endoscopic submucosal dissection alone (ESD). We compared en bloc resection, pathological complete resection, and complications associated with these methods.

Results

Overall, 206 lesions from 203 patients were included in the study (mean size 25.2 ± 10.1 mm). The number of lesions treated with EMR-P, ESD-S, and ESD was 91 (44.2 %), 57 (27.7 %), and 58 (28.2 %), respectively. There was a significant difference in both the en bloc resection rates (EMR-P, 61.5 %; ESD-S, 64.9 %; ESD, 96.6 %; p = 0.001) and complete resection rates (EMR-P, 51.6 %; ESD–S, 54.4 %; ESD, 75.9 %; p = 0.009). Bleeding and perforation were less frequently observed in the EMR-P group. In the subgroup-analysis of lesions less than 20 mm, however, these differences were not observed.

Conclusions

All endoscopic resection methods, including EMR-P, ESD-S, and ESD, were effective and safe for the treatment of colorectal neoplasms. Technically demanding ESD with high en bloc and complete resection rate should be reserved for the suspicious cancer lesion, which requires the precise histological evaluation. EMR-P with good feasibility can be considered an alternative to ESD for the lesions less than 20 mm.     

内镜黏膜下剥离术和内镜下黏膜切除术治疗早期食管癌安全有效性的Meta分析

【摘要】目的探讨内镜黏膜下剥离术（ESD）和内镜下黏膜切除术（EMR）在治疗早期食管癌的有效性和安全性方面的差异。方法检索1990年1月至2012年12月Medline、Embase、Cochranelibrary、万方数据库、维普数据库及中国知网数据库上发表的有关早期食管癌ESD和EMR治疗比较研究的所有中英文论文,通过纳入和排除标准筛选后最终纳入文献的效应指标采用Revman5．1软件进行统计分析,以整块切除率、治愈性切除率、局部复发率为有效性效应指标,以穿孔、出血、狭窄和手术时间为安全性效应指标。结果最终纳入8篇非随机对照回顾性队列研究。Meta分析显示,ESD组较EMR组整块切除率[98．36％（360／366）比41．79％（252／603）,P〈0．01]、治愈性切除率[90．81％（168／185）比50．65％（194／383）,P〈0．01]均显著增高,局部复发率[0．55％（2／366）比13．76％（83／603）,P〈0．01]显著降低,穿孔率[4．51％（21／466）比1．25％（8／640）,P=0．03]明显增高,出血率[0．21％（1／466）比0．63％（4／640）,P=0．41]和术后狭窄率[10．48％（39／372）比10．15％（41／404）,P=0．89]差异无统计学意义。结论在早期食管癌的内镜治疗上,ESD的有效性明显优于EMR,安全性则与EMR相似,ESD应作为首选内镜治疗方法。     

内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗直肠侧向发育型肿瘤的临床价值(附视频)

目的研究直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(LST)的临床病理学特征,并评价内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)治疗直肠LST的疗效及安全性。 方法收集2008年4月至2012年1月期间,复旦大学附属中山医院内镜中心行ESD治疗的120例直肠LST患者的临床资料。首先按内镜下表面形态将120例LST进行分型,统计各型LST的部位、大小、形态特征,然后对LST的临床病理特点以及ESD治疗的切除率、手术时间、并发症和复发情况进行分析。 结果120例直肠LST病变中84例为颗粒型(84/120,70%),36例为非颗粒型(36/120,30%),平均病变大小为35 mm。其中绒毛状管状腺瘤占38.3%,高级别上皮内瘤变28.3%,黏膜下癌7.5%。平均手术时间为：51.8±28.16(17～110)min,整块切除率为98.3%,完整切除率为95.0%,完整治愈切除率为90.8%。ESD术后出血发生率为4.2%,穿孔发生率为3.3%。平均随访时间为32.6个月,复发率为0.8%。 结论直肠LST病变大于2 cm,存在较高的恶变潜能。ESD治疗LST病变整块切除率高,复发率较低,是直肠LST病变安全且有效的治疗方法。     

结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤内镜诊断与治疗

目的探讨结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(LST)内镜诊断方法,经内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)、分片切除术(EPMR)、内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)方法治疗LST的疗效、安全性。方法 LST经色素染色放大内镜或NBI-ME观察病变形态、腺管开口分型(pit)及表面微血管分型(MP),分别进行EMR、EPMR、ESD或外科手术治疗,并分析LST的病理特点。结果在399例病人检出有LST,共407个病变。LST大小在10～80mm。LST部位在直肠128个(31.4%),乙状结肠97个(23.8%),降结肠54个(13.3%),横结肠67个(16.5%),升结肠21个(5.2%),盲肠36个(8.8%),回肠末段4例(1.0%)。LST形态呈颗粒均一型145个,结节混合型161个,扁平隆起型63个,假凹陷型38个。LST腺管开口分型以ⅢL和Ⅳ为多。405个LST经肠镜微创电切治疗,228个行EMR切除,165个行EPMR切除,12个行ESD切除,均在内镜下成功电切,另2例LST行外科手术治疗。出血发生率4.0%,术中即刻出血4例,术后3天迟发出血12例,无肠穿孔发生。LST病理结果:管状腺瘤46个(11.3%),管状绒毛状腺瘤146个(35.9%),绒毛状腺瘤181个(44.5%),增生性息肉10个(2.5%),高级别上皮内瘤变19个(4.7%),黏膜内癌3个(0.7%),黏膜下癌2个(0.4%)。术后复查肠镜无复发。结论色素染色放大内镜或NBI-ME方法有利于检出LST,EMR、EPMR、ESD是内镜下治疗LST安全有效的方法。     

Efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resections for the management of small gastric adenomas with low-grade dysplasia

Abstract

Objective. Gastric adenoma with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can progress to gastric cancer; however, the optimal therapeutic modality for LGD has not been established. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety of and local recurrence following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for LGD. Specifically, we compared EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) and EMR using a dual-channel endoscope (EMR-D) for the treatment of LGD ≤2 cm. Materials and methods: A total of 158 lesions from 147 patients with LGD treated by EMR were retrospectively analyzed. The en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, complication rate and local recurrence rate were compared between EMR-P and EMR-D. Results. The en bloc resection and complete resection rates of EMR were 91.1% and 90.5%, respectively. The bleeding and perforation rates were 1.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The local recurrence rate following EMR was 2.2%. The en bloc resection and complete resection rates did not differ between EMR-P and EMR-D (88.2% vs. 92.5%, p = not significant (NS); and 90.2% vs. 90.7%, p = NS, respectively). The procedure time was significantly longer for EMR-P compared with EMR-D (16 (5–141) vs. 7 (2–48) min, p < 0.001), and the complication rate was significantly higher for EMR-P (7.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.010). Local recurrence was not found in EMR-P, whereas the recurrence rate was 3.2% in EMR-D. Conclusion. EMR is an effective method for the treatment of LGD ≤2 cm. Compared with EMR-P, EMR-D appears to be the more effective, technically simple and safer method.     

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors larger than 20 mm

Background and Aims: Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LST) > 20 mm are usually treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) is sometimes required. The aim of our study was to compare the outcomes of ESD and EMR, including EPMR, for such LST. Methods: A total of 269 consecutive patients with a colorectal LST > 20 mm were treated endoscopically at our hospital from April 2006 to December 2009. We retrospectively evaluated the complications and local recurrence rates associated with ESD, hybrid ESD (ESD with EMR), EMR, and EPMR. Results: ESD and EMR were performed successfully for 89 and 178 LST, respectively: 61 by ESD; 28 by hybrid ESD; 70 by EMR; and 108 by EPMR. Between‐group differences in perforation rates were not significant. Local recurrence rates in cases with curative resection were as follows: 0% (0/56) in ESD; 0% (0/27) in hybrid ESD; 1.4% (1/69) in EMR; and 12.1% (13/107) in EPMR; that is, significantly higher in EPMR. No metastasis was seen at follow up. The recurrence rate for EPMR yielding ≥ three pieces was significantly high (P < 0.001). All 14 local recurrent lesions were adenomas that were cured endoscopically. Conclusions: As for safety, ESD/hybrid ESD is equivalent to EMR/EPMR. ESD/hybrid ESD is a feasible technique for en bloc resection and showed no local recurrence. Although local recurrences associated with EMR/EPMR were seen, which were conducted based on our indication criteria, all local recurrences could obtain complete cure by additional endoscopic treatment.     

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To compare endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) for early gastric cancer(EGC).METHODS: Computerized bibliographic search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Schol-ar and Cochrane library databases. Quality of each included study was assessed according to current Co-chrane guidelines. Primary endpoints were en bloc re-section rate and histologically complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were length of procedure, post-treatment bleeding, post-procedural perforation and re-currence rate. Comparisons between the two treatment groups across all the included studies were performed by using Mantel-Haenszel test for fixed-effects mod-els(in case of low heterogeneity) or DerSimonian and Laird test for random-effects models(in case of high heterogeneity).RESULTS: Ten retrospective studies(8 full text and 2 abstracts) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall data on 4328 lesions, 1916 in the ESD and 2412 in the EMR group were pooled and analyzed. The mean operation time was longer for ESD than for EMR(stan-dardized mean difference 1.73, 95%CI: 0.52-2.95, P =0.005) and the "en bloc " and histological complete re-section rates were significantly higher in the ESD group [OR = 9.69(95%CI: 7.74-12.13), P 0.001 and OR = 5.66,(95%CI: 2.92-10.96), P 0.001, respectively]. As a consequence of its greater radicality, ESD provided lower recurrence rate [OR = 0.09,(95%CI: 0.05-0.17), P 0.001]. Among complications, perforation rate was significantly higher after ESD [OR = 4.67,(95%CI, 2.77-7.87), P 0.001] whereas the bleeding incidences did not differ between the two techniques [OR = 1.49(0.6-3.71), P = 0.39].CONCLUSION: In the endoscopic therapy of EGC, ESD showed a superior efficacy but higher complication rate with respect to EMR.     

Matched case-control study comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors

Background and Aim: For large colorectal tumors, the en bloc resection rate achieved by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is insufficient, and this leads to a high rate of local recurrence. As endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to achieve a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower rate of local recurrence in the short‐term, it is expected to overcome the limitations of EMR. We conducted a matched case‐control study between ESD and EMR to clarify the effectiveness of ESD for colorectal tumors. Methods: Between April 2005 and February 2009, a total of 28 colorectal tumors in 28 patients were resected by ESD and were followed up by colonoscopy at least once. As a control group, 56 EMR cases from our prospectively completed database were matched. En bloc resection, complication and recurrence rates were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean sizes of the lesions were 27.1 mm in the ESD group and 25.0 mm in the EMR group. The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the ESD group (92.9% vs 37.5% with ESD vs EMR), and the rate of perforation was also significantly higher (10.7% vs 0%). All cases of perforation were managed conservatively. No recurrence was observed in the ESD group, whereas local recurrences were detected in 12 EMR cases (21.4%). Eleven of the 12 recurrences (91.7%) were managed endoscopically, and one required surgical resection. Conclusions: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a promising technique for the treatment of colorectal tumors, giving an excellent outcome in comparison with EMR.     

Resection area of 15 mm as dividing line for choosing strip biopsy or endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal gastric neoplasm

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is effective treatment for mucosal gastric neoplasm. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a novel EMR method, has been reported to enable en bloc resection more frequently than conventional EMR methods such as strip biopsy (SB). However, ESD requires more time than SB. A small lesion can be resected en bloc and effectively treated with SB. GOAL: To evaluate using a 15 mm resection area as the dividing line between SB and ESD prospectively. STUDY: SB was applied for resection area less than 15 mm (SB group) and ESD for 15 mm or larger resection (ESD group). We compared characteristics of lesions and outcomes of EMR between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Ninety lesions were prospectively assigned to SB group (36 lesions) and ESD group (54 lesions). The average neoplasm size was 9.0+/-3.9 mm in the SB group and 19.1+/-11.3 mm in the ESD group (P<0.01). The average resection time was 11.7+/-5.8 minutes in the SB group and 128.9+/-102.8 minutes in the ESD group (P<0.01). The complete resection rate was 91.6% in the SB group and 83.3% in the ESD group (P=0.25). The complication rate was not significantly different between SB group and ESD group (11.1% vs. 16.7%, P=0.12). During follow-up (median 23+/-5 mo), 1 patient in each group, who had piecemeal resection at original EMR had recurrent neoplasm. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric mucosal neoplasms which require only small (<15 mm) resection can be treated with SB, as effectively as with ESD.