-
Efficacy of the pocket-creation method with a traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions
-
Daisuke Ide, Tomohiko Richard Ohya, Mitsuaki Ishioka, Yuri Enomoto, Eisuke Nakao, Yuki Mitsuyoshi, Junki Tokura, Keigo Suzuki, Seiichi Yakabi, Chihiro Yasue, Akiko Chino, Masahiro Igarashi, Akio Nakashima, Masayuki Saruta, Shoichi Saito, Junko Fujisaki
-
Clin Endosc 2022;55(5):655-664. Published online May 31, 2022
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.009
-
-
Abstract
PDFSupplementary MaterialPubReaderePub
- Background
/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection is challenging because of severe fibrosis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (TD) with that of conventional ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions.
Methods We retrospectively studied 72 patients with residual or recurrent colorectal lesions resected using ESD. Overall, 31 and 41 lesions were resected using PCM with TD and conventional ESD methods, respectively. We compared patient background and treatment outcomes between the PCM with TD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. The primary endpoints were en bloc resection and R0 resection rates. The secondary endpoints were the dissection speed and incidence of adverse events.
Results En bloc resection was feasible in all cases with PCM with TD, but failed in 22% of cases of conventional ESD. The R0 resection rates for PCM with TD and conventional ESD were 97% and 66%, respectively. Dissection was significantly faster in the PCM with TD group (13.0 vs. 7.9 mm2/min). Perforation and postoperative bleeding were observed in one patient in each group.
Conclusions PCM with TD is an effective method for treating residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
- Novel adjustable traction “noose knot” method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection
Junki Tokura, Daisuke Ide, Keigo Suzuki, Chihiro Yasue, Akiko Chino, Masahiro Igarashi, Shoichi Saito Endoscopy.2024; 56(S 01): E55. CrossRef - Approaches and considerations in the endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer
Yunho Jung The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2024; 39(4): 563. CrossRef - Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Juan Du, Ting Zhang, Lei Wang, Hao Zhang, Wenquan Yi Surgical Endoscopy.2024; 38(6): 3027. CrossRef - Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?
Francesco Cocomazzi, Sonia Carparelli, Nunzia Labarile, Antonio Capogreco, Marco Gentile, Roberta Maselli, Jahnvi Dhar, Jayanta Samanta, Alessandro Repici, Cesare Hassan, Francesco Perri, Antonio Facciorusso Expert Review of Medical Devices.2024; 21(7): 561. CrossRef - The Derivation and External Validation of a Fibrosis Risk Model for Colorectal Tumours Undergoing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Sandro Sferrazza, Marcello Maida, Giulio Calabrese, Antonio Facciorusso, Lorenzo Fuccio, Leonardo Frazzoni, Roberta Maselli, Alessandro Repici, Roberto Di Mitri, João Santos-Antunes Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(15): 4517. CrossRef - Difficult colorectal polypectomy: Technical tips and recent advances
Sukit Pattarajierapan, Hiroyuki Takamaru, Supakij Khomvilai World Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 29(17): 2600. CrossRef - Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for challenging colorectal lesions: a randomized trial
Gianluca Andrisani, Cesare Hassan, Margherita Pizzicannella, Francesco Pugliese, Massimiliano Mutignani, Chiara Campanale, Giorgio Valerii, Carmelo Barbera, Giulio Antonelli, Francesco Maria Di Matteo Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2023; 98(6): 987. CrossRef - Combination of endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques, a practical solution for difficult cases
Dong-Hoon Yang Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(5): 626. CrossRef
-
5,230
View
-
325
Download
-
8
Web of Science
-
8
Crossref
|