4.4 Article

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection is an Effective and Safe Therapy for Early Gastric Neoplasms A Multicenter Feasible Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 124-129

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31822f3988

Keywords

endoscopic submucosal dissection; early gastric neoplasm; complication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: The technique of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was introduced to obtain en bloc specimens of large early gastrointestinal neoplasms. The drawback of ESD is its technical difficulty and, consequently, its higher rate of complication. In this multicenter study, we investigated the therapeutic outcomes of ESD in consecutive patients. Methods: From January 2002 to December 2008, 485 early gastric neoplasms in 418 patients were consecutively treated by using ESD procedure performed by 6 endoscopists in 4 institutions in Tokyo. Demorgraphics, tumor location, therapeutic outcomes, and complication rates were analyzed. Results: The rates of en bloc resection, complete en bloc resection, submucosal invasion, and piecemeal resection were 93.6%, 85.4%, 10.9%, and 5.4%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the en bloc resection rate was independently lower in lesions in upper portion than in lower portion (P < 0.01), lower in larger lesions (> 30mm, P < 0.05; 20 to 30mm, P < 0.05), and lower in lesions with a scar (P < 0.01). Delayed bleeding occurrence was independently high in larger lesions (> 30mm, P < 0.01; 20 to 29mm, P < 0.01) than in small lesions (< 20 mm). Institution and endoscopists were not risk factors of en bloc resection and complications Conclusions: ESD is an effective and safe therapy in the management of early gastric neoplasms when performed by well-trained endoscopists. Endoscopists should recognize the difficulty to perform ESD for en bloc resection of upper lesion, and the risk of delayed bleeding in cases of lesions > 2 cm in size.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available