4.6 Article

Risk factors for cardiac and pyloric stenosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection, and efficacy of endoscopic balloon dilation treatment

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 421-426

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1214642

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and study aims: Bleeding and perforation are major complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC), but post-ESD stenosis represents a severe delayed complication that can result in clinical symptoms such as dysphagia and nausea. The aims Of this Study were to determine the risk factors and evaluate the clinical treatment for post-ESD stenosis. Methods: A total of 2011 EGCs resected by ESD at Our institution between 2000 and 2005 were reviewed retrospectively. Resection was defined as cardiac when any mucosal defect was located in the squamocolumnar junction, and as pyloric when any mucosal defect was located <1 cm from the pylorus ring. Post-ESD stenosis was defined when a standard endoscope could not be passed through the stenosis. We examined the incidence of post-ESD stenosis, its relationship with relevant factors, and the clinical course of post-ESD stenosis patients. Results: Post-ESD stenosis occurred with seven of 41 cardiac resections (17%) and eight of 115 pyloric resections (7%). Circumferential extent of the mucosal defect of >3/4 and longitudinal extent >5 cm were each significantly related to occurrence of post-ESD stenosis with both cardiac and pyloric resections. All 15 affected patients were successfully treated by endoscopic balloon dilation. Conclusions: A circumferential extent of the mucosal defect of >3/4 or longitudinal extent of >5cm in length were both demonstrated to be risk factors for post-ESD stenosis, in both cardiac and pyloric resections, and endoscopic balloon dilation was shown to be effective in treating post-ESD stenosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available