-
Something wrong with this record ?
Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience
P. Falt, J. Zapletalová, O. Urban
Language English Country Germany
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Endoscopic Mucosal Resection * adverse effects methods MeSH
- Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal MeSH
- Colorectal Neoplasms * surgery MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local surgery MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22010921
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20220506130206.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 220425s2022 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00464-021-08492-0 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33860350
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Falt, Přemysl $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience / $c P. Falt, J. Zapletalová, O. Urban
- 520 9_
- $a Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.
- 650 12
- $a kolorektální nádory $x chirurgie $7 D015179
- 650 12
- $a endoskopická mukózní resekce $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D000069916
- 650 _2
- $a gastrointestinální endoskopie $7 D016099
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a lokální recidiva nádoru $x chirurgie $7 D009364
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Zapletalová, Jana $u Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Urban, Ondřej $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Geriatrics, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. ondrej.urban@fnol.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00004464 $t Surgical endoscopy $x 1432-2218 $g Roč. 36, č. 3 (2022), s. 2062-2069
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33860350 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20220425 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20220506130159 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1788844 $s 1162119
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 36 $c 3 $d 2062-2069 $e 20210415 $i 1432-2218 $m Surgical endoscopy $n Surg Endosc $x MED00004464
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20220425