Background: The quality of colonoscopy has been related to a higher risk of interval cancer, and this issue has been addressed extensively in developed countries. The aim of our study was to explore the main quality indicators of colonoscopy in a large emerging country. Methods: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy in 14 centres were prospectively included between July and October 2014. Before colonoscopy, several clinical and demographic variables were collected. Main quality indicators (i.e. caecal intubation rate, (advanced) adenoma detection rate, rate of adequate cleansing and sedation) were collected. Data were analysed at per patient and per centre level (only for those with at least 100 cases). Factors associated with caecal intubation rate and adenoma detection rate were explored at multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 8829 (males: 35%; mean age: 57 þ 14 years) patients were included, with 11 centres enrolling at least 100 patients. Screening (including non-alarm symptoms) accounted for 59% (5188/8829) of the indications. Sedation and split preparation were used in 26% (2294/8829) and 25% (2187/8829) of the patients. Caecal intubation was achieved in 7616 patients (86%), and it was !85% in 8/11 (73%) centres. Adenoma detection rate was 18% (1550/8829), and it was higher than 20% in five (45%) centres, whilst it was lower than 10% in four (33%) centres. At multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.020, 95% CI: 1.015-1.024), male sex (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3), alarm symptoms (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.7-2), split preparation (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6), caecal intubation rate (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and withdrawal time measurement (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.6-2.1) were predictors of a higher adenoma detection rate, while adequate preparation (OR: 3.4: 95% CI: 2.9-3.9) and sedation (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) were the strongest predictors of caecal intubation rate. Conclusions: According to our study, there is a substantial intercentre variability in the main quality indicators. Overall, the caecal intubation rate appears to be acceptable in most centres, whilst the overall level of adenoma detection appears low, with less than half of the centres being higher than 20%. Educational and quality assurance programs, including higher rates of sedation and split regimen of preparation, may be necessary to increase the key quality indicators.
AIM: to assess results of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colon neoplasms due to lesion site.PATIENTS AND METHODS: One-hundred thirteen patients (66 females, aged 65,7±11,0 years) with colon neoplasms which underwent ESD for one year (January 2017 – January 2018) were included in the study. All patients were divided in two groups depending on lesion site. The first group included patients with lesions in caecum, ascending colon and proximal third of tranverse colon, the second group – other colon parts and intraperitoneal part of the rectum. All patients underwent preoperative tests including colonoscopy, gastroscopy and transabdominal ultrasound. ESD included lesion marking, injection, circular incision and dissection. The results obtained were analyzed statistically using Graph Pad 7 for Mac. RESULTS: the 1st group included 61 (54.0%) patients and the 2nd – 52 (46.0%). Laterally spreading tumors (LST) were detected more often in the 1st group (56 patients of the 1st group vs 38 – in the 2nd, p=0.03). The lesion size in the 1st group was 31±13 (7-80) mm and 29±11 (8-76) in the 2nd one (p=0.3). Conversion from ESD to resection occurred in 9 (8.0%) patients, in 5 patients of the 1st group and in 4 – the 2nd one (p=1.0). The only reason for conversion was unfavorable lesion lifting (≤2 mm).Most of the lesions were removed en bloc, specimen fragmentation after ESD occurred in 10 (9.6%) patients: in 5 (9.0%) in the 1st group and in 5 (10.4%) in the 2nd (р=1.0). Intraoperative complications during ESD in the 1st group occurred in 2 (3.5%) cases and in 2 (4.1%) – in the 2nd (р=1.0). Postoperative complications were detected in 2 (1.9%) patients. Histopathology showed adenocarcinoma in 9 (8.0%) patients. Two (1.7%) patients produced local recurrence. CONCLUSION: ESD is a safe method removal of colon ademonas. The intra- and postoperative complications rate is 3.5% and 1.9% for the 1st and the 2nd group. Local recurrences occurred in 2,04%. Unfavorable lesion lifting (≤2 mm) in right colon is a risk factor for specimen fragmentation or conversion.
AIM: transanal endomicrosurgery (TEM) is the standard for organ-preserving treatment of patients with large adenomas and early rectal cancer. The advantage of TEM in comparison with other transanal methods of treatment of rectal tumors is the low frequency of R1 resections and fragmentation, which procudes a low level of local recurrences. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a new technology for superficial rectum tumors. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared safety and efficacy of ESD vs TEM for large adenoma and early colorectal cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: a literature search and meta-analysis of the data was carried out in accordance with the English-language Medline database without restrictions on the publication date (end December 18, 2018) according to keywords: «endoscopic submucosal dissection», «esd», «endoscopic dissection», «tem», «tamis», «transanal endoscopic microsurgery», «transanal resection», «teo», «transanal endoscopic microsurgical excision». The systematic review includes all papers on the comparison of TEM and ESD for large adenomas and early rectal cancer. Statistical data processing was performed using Review Manager 5.3.RESULTS: four retrospective comparative studies were included in the analysis (215 patients). Groups were homogenous in the number of tumors (Odds ratio [OR]=1,19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-6.16) and size (p=0.55). The intraoperative morbidity included bleeding (p=0.54) and rectal perforation (p=0.32) was homogenous as well. The operation time in the ESD group was significantly longer by 32 minutes than TEM (OR=32.5;95% CI 17,7-47.4; p<0.0001). Postoperative stay was higher than in 1.6 times after TEM (OR=16.1; 95% CI 1.5-30.1; p=0.03). The antibiotics use after surgery was not significantly different in both groups (p=0.33). The en-bloc resections (p=0.66) and the rate of R1 resections (p=0.74) were not significantly different in both groups. The local recurrence rate was homogenous (p=0.95).CONCLUSIONS: the ESD and TEM procedures are safe and effective techniques for local excision of adenomas and early colorectal cancer, but a randomized study is needed to prove the results.
BACKGROUND: endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a modern effective method for patients with benign epithelial tumors and early colorectal cancer.The use of such a technique for ESD as a submucosal tunnel (‘pocket’) – creation under a tumor creates conditions for improving the surgical specimen qualityand reducingfragmentationrate.Aim: to study the effectiveness and safety of the tunnel method of ESD (TESD) in comparison with classical ESD (CESD) in colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer.MATERIALS AND METHODS: literature search and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations using the PUBMED search system in the Medline electronic database without limiting publication datesin the English language literature. The systematic review included all the studies on comparison of the tunnel and classical ESD methods.RESULTS: the analysis included 4 studies (1,422 patients, 458 in the TESD group and 961 in the CESD group). The groups were comparable in the number of adenomas (OR=1.25; 95% CI=0.87-1.79; p=0.22), adenocarcinomas (OR=0.96; 95% CI=0.49-1.87; p=0.90), in the size of neoplasms (95% CI=-6.26-1.22; p=0.19), and in the presence of submucosal fibrosis (p=0.69). There were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding rate (OR=1.24; 95% CI=0.53-2.88; p=0.61); however, perforations occurred more often when using CESD (OR= 0.35; 95% CI=0.15-0.83; p=0.02). The CESD took significantly longer time than the TESD (OR=-19.1; 95% CI=33.89-4.45; p=0.01). The frequency of en bloc resections (OR=16.06; 95% CI=4.95-52.11; p<0.0001) and R0-resections (OR=3.28; 95% CI=1.30-8.32; p=0.01) were significantly higher in the TESD. CONCLUSION: the tunnel method of endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective and safe alternative to the classical method. However, there is currently a lack of data for the choice of submucosal dissection method for large colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer, which requires further comparative studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.