-
Short-term outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clutch cutter for subepithelial lesions within the esophagogastric submucosa: a Japanese prospective observational study
-
Kazuya Akahoshi, Kazuki Inamura, Kazuaki Akahoshi, Shigeki Osada, Shinichi Tamura, Yoshihiro Oishi, Masafumi Oya, Hidenobu Koga
-
Clin Endosc 2025;58(2):278-284. Published online October 10, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.094
-
-
 Graphical Abstract
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material PubReader ePub
 - Background
/Aims: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clutch cutter (ESD-CC) for subepithelial lesions within the esophagogastric submucosa (SELEGSM) has not been investigated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ESD-CC for the treatment of SELEGSM.
Methods
This prospective study included 15 consecutive patients with 18 SELEGSMs diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasonography. The primary outcomes were short-term outcomes including en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate. The secondary outcome was final histological diagnosis.
Results
Among the participants, 18 lesions were identified: 12 in the stomach (nine patients) and six in the esophagus (six patients). The en bloc resection rate was 94.4% (17/18). The R0 resection rate was 88.9% (16/18). The median operating time was 39 min, and no instances of perforation or bleeding were observed. The final diagnoses of SELEGSM included six neuroendocrine tumors (33.3%), six granular cell tumors (33.3%), two ectopic pancreases (11.1%), one inflammatory fibroid polyp (5.6%), one leiomyoma (5.6%), one lipoma (5.6%), and one leiomyosarcoma (5.6%).
Conclusions
ESD-CC appears to be a technically efficient and safe approach for SELEGSM resection, suggesting its potential as a valuable treatment option.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Advancements in endoscopic resection of subepithelial tumors: toward safer, recurrence-free techniques
Won Shik Kim, Moon Kyung Joo
Clinical Endoscopy.2025; 58(2): 256. CrossRef
-
2,058
View
-
284
Download
-
1
Web of Science
-
1
Crossref
|
KSGE
