AIMTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for small rectal submucosal tumors (SMTs). METHODSBetween August 2008 and March 2016, 39 patients were treated with endoscopic submucosa...AIMTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for small rectal submucosal tumors (SMTs). METHODSBetween August 2008 and March 2016, 39 patients were treated with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) (n = 21) or ESD (n = 18) for small rectal SMTs in this study. Twenty-five lesions were confirmed by histological evaluation of endoscopic biopsy prior to the procedure, and 14 lesions were not evaluated by endoscopic biopsy. The results for the ESMR-L group and the ESD group were retrospectively compared, including baseline characteristics and therapeutic outcomes. RESULTSThe rate of en bloc resection was 100% in both groups. Although the rate of complete endoscopic resection was higher in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (100% vs 95.2%), there were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.462). In one patient in the ESMR-L group with a previously biopsied tumor, histological complete resection with a vertical margin involvement of carcinoid tumor could not be achieved, whereas there was no incomplete resection in the ESD group. The mean length of the procedure was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (14.7 ± 6.4 min vs 5.4 ± 1.7 min, P vs 2.8 ± 1.5 d, P CONCLUSIONBoth ESMR-L and ESD were effective for treatment of small rectal SMTs. ESMR-L was simpler to perform than ESD and took less time.展开更多
文摘AIMTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for small rectal submucosal tumors (SMTs). METHODSBetween August 2008 and March 2016, 39 patients were treated with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) (n = 21) or ESD (n = 18) for small rectal SMTs in this study. Twenty-five lesions were confirmed by histological evaluation of endoscopic biopsy prior to the procedure, and 14 lesions were not evaluated by endoscopic biopsy. The results for the ESMR-L group and the ESD group were retrospectively compared, including baseline characteristics and therapeutic outcomes. RESULTSThe rate of en bloc resection was 100% in both groups. Although the rate of complete endoscopic resection was higher in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (100% vs 95.2%), there were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.462). In one patient in the ESMR-L group with a previously biopsied tumor, histological complete resection with a vertical margin involvement of carcinoid tumor could not be achieved, whereas there was no incomplete resection in the ESD group. The mean length of the procedure was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (14.7 ± 6.4 min vs 5.4 ± 1.7 min, P vs 2.8 ± 1.5 d, P CONCLUSIONBoth ESMR-L and ESD were effective for treatment of small rectal SMTs. ESMR-L was simpler to perform than ESD and took less time.
