• Something wrong with this record ?

Prevention of esophageal strictures after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection

J. Martínek, S. Juhas, R. Dolezel, B. Walterová, J. Juhasova, J. Klima, Z. Rabekova, Z. Vacková,

. 2018 ; 73 (4) : 394-409. [pub] 20180524

Language English Country Italy

Document type Journal Article, Review

Grant support
NV16-27653A MZ0 CEP Register

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or widespread endoscopic resection allow the radical removal of circumferential or near-circumferential neoplastic esophageal lesions. The advantage of these endoscopic methods is mini-invasivity and low risk of major adverse events compared to traditional esophagectomy. The major drawback of these extensive resections is the development of stricture - the risk is 70-80% if more than 75% of the circumference is removed and almost 100% if the whole circumference is removed. Thus, an effective method to prevent post-ER/ESD esophageal stricture would be of major benefit, because treatment of strictures requires multiple sessions of endoscopic dilatation and may carry a risk of perforation. Moreover, not all strictures are easy to treat and some patients may develop refractory strictures. There are several techniques and methods, which have been tested in both experimental and/or clinical studies but no one has received general acceptance based on results of high-quality evidence. The studies are usually small with a limited number of patients, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials and some techniques have been described only in experimental studies. Thus, prevention of post-ESD strictures remains an unresolved issue. On the other hand, because of the high risk of stricture and partially proven effectiveness of some preventive techniques, a preventive strategy should be considered in patients undergoing extensive ER/ESD in the esophagus. There is, however, no evidence about the superiority or inferiority of a particular preventive strategy compared to other techniques, moreover, there is paucity of data assessing the effectiveness of the combination of different preventive methods. The best preventive strategies known so far include 1) oral or local administration of corticosteroids; and 2) preventive stenting. Other strategies (preventive sessions of endoscopic dilatation or tissue engineering methods) have unproven efficacy or are too demanding for practical use. Nevertheless, the use of (any) preventive strategy after extensive ER/ESD of the esophagus probably reduces the risk of stricture and the number of endoscopic dilatations, therefore, it should be considered in these patients. However, there is a need for high quality evidence as well as for new ideas and approaches to resolve this important clinical problem.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19035224
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20191011122627.0
007      
ta
008      
191007s2018 it f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07751-9 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29795068
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a it
100    1_
$a Martínek, Jan $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic - jan.martinek@volny.cz. Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic - jan.martinek@volny.cz. Institute of Physiology - jan.martinek@volny.cz. st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic - jan.martinek@volny.cz.
245    10
$a Prevention of esophageal strictures after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection / $c J. Martínek, S. Juhas, R. Dolezel, B. Walterová, J. Juhasova, J. Klima, Z. Rabekova, Z. Vacková,
520    9_
$a Endoscopic submucosal dissection or widespread endoscopic resection allow the radical removal of circumferential or near-circumferential neoplastic esophageal lesions. The advantage of these endoscopic methods is mini-invasivity and low risk of major adverse events compared to traditional esophagectomy. The major drawback of these extensive resections is the development of stricture - the risk is 70-80% if more than 75% of the circumference is removed and almost 100% if the whole circumference is removed. Thus, an effective method to prevent post-ER/ESD esophageal stricture would be of major benefit, because treatment of strictures requires multiple sessions of endoscopic dilatation and may carry a risk of perforation. Moreover, not all strictures are easy to treat and some patients may develop refractory strictures. There are several techniques and methods, which have been tested in both experimental and/or clinical studies but no one has received general acceptance based on results of high-quality evidence. The studies are usually small with a limited number of patients, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials and some techniques have been described only in experimental studies. Thus, prevention of post-ESD strictures remains an unresolved issue. On the other hand, because of the high risk of stricture and partially proven effectiveness of some preventive techniques, a preventive strategy should be considered in patients undergoing extensive ER/ESD in the esophagus. There is, however, no evidence about the superiority or inferiority of a particular preventive strategy compared to other techniques, moreover, there is paucity of data assessing the effectiveness of the combination of different preventive methods. The best preventive strategies known so far include 1) oral or local administration of corticosteroids; and 2) preventive stenting. Other strategies (preventive sessions of endoscopic dilatation or tissue engineering methods) have unproven efficacy or are too demanding for practical use. Nevertheless, the use of (any) preventive strategy after extensive ER/ESD of the esophagus probably reduces the risk of stricture and the number of endoscopic dilatations, therefore, it should be considered in these patients. However, there is a need for high quality evidence as well as for new ideas and approaches to resolve this important clinical problem.
650    12
$a endoskopická mukózní resekce $x metody $7 D000069916
650    _2
$a stenóza jícnu $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D004940
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D011183
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Juhas, Stefan $u Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dolezel, Radek $u Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic. Ostrava University, Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Walterová, Barbora $u Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Juhasova, Jana $u Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Klima, Jiri $u Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics AS CR, v.v.i, Libechov, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Rabekova, Zuzana $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Vacková, Zuzana $u Department of Hepatogastroenterology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00003366 $t Minerva chirurgica $x 1827-1626 $g Roč. 73, č. 4 (2018), s. 394-409
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29795068 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20191007 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20191011123047 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1451884 $s 1073774
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2018 $b 73 $c 4 $d 394-409 $e 20180524 $i 1827-1626 $m Minerva chirurgica $n Minerva Chir $x MED00003366
GRA    __
$a NV16-27653A $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20191007

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...