Endoscopic submucosal dissection for small submucosal tumors of the rectum compared with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device

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.

Successful outcomes of EMR-L with 3D-EUS for rectal carcinoids compared with historical controls

AIM: To assess the results of endoscopic mucosal re-section with a ligation device (EMR-L) combined with three dimensional endoscopic ultrasonography (3D-EUS) using an ultrasonic probe for rectal carcinoids. In addition, diagnosis of the depth and size of lesions by EUS was evaluated. METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2007, 20 patients underwent EMR-L with 3D-EUS using an ultrasonic probe (group A). 3D-EUS was combined with EMR-L at the time of injection of sterile physiological saline into the submucosal layer. For comparison, 14 rectal carcinoids that had been treated by EMR-L with-out 3D-EUS between April 1998 and December 2002 were evaluated as historical controls (group B). EUS was conducted for all of the patients before treatment to evaluate tumor diameter and depth of invasion. The percentage of complete resection and the verti-cal resection margin were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The depth of invasion upon histopathologi-cal examination was in complete agreement with the pre-operative fi ndings by EUS. The tumor diameter de-termined by EUS approximated that found in the tissue samples. There were no signifi cant differences in the gender, tumor sites or tumor diameters between the two groups. The rate of complete resection for groups A and B was 100% and 71%, respectively (P < 0.05). The vertical resection margin of group A was longer than that of group B. CONCLUSION: EMR-L is effective as an endoscopictreatment for rectal carcinoids. In combination with 3D-EUS, safe and complete resection is further as-sured.