内镜黏膜切除术与高频电凝圈套切除术治疗结直肠无蒂息肉的疗效对比

Comparative of endoscopic mucosal resection and high frequency electric coagulation electric cut method for treating non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

目的:探讨内镜黏膜切除术(endoscopic mucosal resection,EMR)及高频电凝圈套切除术治疗结直肠无蒂息肉的有效性及安全性。方法:收集2013年1月至2015年7月108例行EMR治疗(EMR组)或高频电凝圈套切除术治疗(电切组)的结直肠无蒂息肉(直径1~2cm,共131枚)患者的临床资料。对比分析两组患者的手术时长、术后住院时间、手术并发症情况。结果:EMR及高频电凝圈套切除术均成功切除息肉。EMR组手术时长[(9.19±1.32)min]长于电切组[(7.71±1.33)min];EMR组术后平均住院时间[(3.51±2.04)d]短于电切组[(4.63±1.81)d];EMR组术后并发症发生率(5.26%)低于电切组(21.6%),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。随访期间未见病变残留、原位复发。结论:EMR和高频电凝圈套切除术均可用于直径1~2cm结直肠无蒂息肉的治疗,其中EMR更安全、术后恢复更快。

Objective：To explore the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection（EMR）and high frequency electric coagulation electric cut method for treating non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.Methods：During January 2013 and July 2015,the clinical data of 108 patients with 131 non-pedunculated colorectal polyps which the diameter between 1-2 cm were treated by EMR or high frequency electric coagulation electric cut method,operative time,hospital stays and complications were recorded for retrospective analysis.Results：EMR and high frequency electric coagulation electric cut method were successfully performed in all 108 cases.Patients in the EMR group needed longer operative time （[9.19±1.32]min）compared with the snare group （[7.71±1.33]min）.The average hospital stay time （[3.51±2.04]d）of patients in the EMR group was shorter compared with that in the snare group （[4.63±1.81]d）.EMR group total postoperative complications （5.26%） was lower than the snare group （21.6%,P〈0.05）.All polyps were excised,no original residual lesions and recurrenceinsitu were found during follow up.Conclusions：Both EMR and high frequency electric coagulation electric cut method can be used for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps,but EMR is safer and can achieve faster postoperative recovery.