Various procedure-related adverse events related to colonoscopic treatment have been reported. Previous studies on the complications of colonoscopic treatment have focused primarily on perforation or bleeding. Coagulation syndrome (CS), which is synonymous with transmural burn syndrome following endoscopic treatment, is another typical adverse event. CS is the result of electrocoagulation injury to the bowel wall that induces a transmural burn and localized peritonitis resulting in serosal inflammation. CS occurs after polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and even endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The occurrence of CS after polypectomy or EMR varies according previous reports; most report an occurrence rate around 1%. However, artificial ulcers after ESD are largely theoretical, and CS following ESD was reported in about 9% of cases, which is higher than that for CS after polypectomy or EMR. Most cases of post-polypectomy syndrome (PPS) have an excellent prognosis, and they are managed conservatively with medical therapy. PPS rarely develops into delayed perforation. Delayed perforation is a severe adverse event that often requires emergency surgery. Since few studies have reported on CS and delayed perforation associated with CS, we focused on CS after colonoscopic treatments in this review. Clinicians should consider delayed perforation in CS patients.
AIMTo investigated the relationship between postoperative bleeding following gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and individual antithrombotic agents.METHODSA total of 2488 gastric neoplasms in 2148 consecutive patients treated between May 2001 and June 2016 were studied. The antithrombotic agents were categorized into antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants, and other antithrombotic agents, and we included combination therapies [e.g., dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)]. The risk factors associated with post-ESD bleeding, namely, antithrombotic agents overall, individual antithrombotic agents, withdrawal or continuation of antithrombotic agents, and bleeding onset period (during the first six days or thereafter), were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses.RESULTSThe en bloc resection and complete curative resection rates were 99.2% and 91.9%, respectively. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 5.1% cases. Bleeding occurred in 10.3% of the patients administered antithrombotic agents. Being male (P = 0.007), specimen size (P < 0.001), and antithrombotic agent used (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for postoperative bleeding. Heparin bridging therapy (HBT) (P = 0.002) and DAPT/multidrug combinations (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors associated with postoperative bleeding. The bleeding rate of the antithrombotic agent continuation group was significantly higher than that of the withdrawal group (P < 0.01). Bleeding within postoperative day (POD) 6 was significantly higher in warfarin (P = 0.015), and bleeding after POD 7 was significantly higher in DAPT/multidrug combinations (P = 0.007). No thromboembolic events were reported.CONCLUSIONWe must closely monitor patients administered HBT and DAPT/multidrug combinations after gastric ESD, particularly those administered multidrug combinations after discharge.
Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is used to treat superficial colorectal tumors. Previous studies have reported the efficacy of ESD for treating residual or local recurrent colorectal tumors. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of ESD in treating these lesions and to assess factors that prevent successful ESD. Methods This retrospective study assessed 25 cases of residual or local recurrent lesions that were previously treated using EMR (18 lesions), TEM (5 lesions), ESD (1 lesion) or surgery (1 lesion), and 459 primary lesions treated using ESD between April 2008 and September 2015. Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment outcome and adverse events were compared between groups with or without scar tissue. Factors related to perforation and a prolonged treatment time, which indicate the likelihood of technical difficulties, were identified using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results In residual or local recurrent lesions groups, patients experienced more perforations (32 % vs 4 %, P < 0.001) and required a longer treatment time (117 min vs 61 min, P < 0.001) compared with the primary lesions group. Both groups showed a similar curative resection rate. Emergency surgery was not needed in any case. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that tumor location and therapeutic scar tissue were high risk factors for perforation, and that large tumor size and therapeutic scar tissue were high risk factors for prolonged treatment time. Conclusions ESD for residual or local recurrent colorectal tumors is a technically challenging, but effective and minimally invasive treatment. When performed carefully with sufficient proficiency, it is a useful treatment option.
Background and Aim Endoscopic resection is feasible for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis; however, endoscopic resection options have not been evaluated comprehensively. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, and decision making regarding endoscopic resection options for patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods Endoscopically treated tumors from patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated en bloc and R0 resection, adverse events, local tumor recurrence, and metachronous lesion occurrence rates. Results We examined 102 tumors (mean size, 12 mm; non‐polypoid, 55 tumors) from 74 patients with ulcerative colitis, of whom, 39 and 63 underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, respectively. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (97%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (80%) (P = 0.0015). For 11–20‐mm tumors, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (94%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (55%) (P = 0.0027); the endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection R0 rates did not differ for ≤ 10‐mm tumors. The non‐polypoid tumor R0 resection rates were significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (100%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (65%) (P < 0.001) and did not differ regarding the polypoid tumor R0 resection rates (75% vs 86%, P = 0.49). Four patients experienced intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection. No local recurrences occurred. Metachronous high‐grade dysplasia occurred in three patients during surveillance. Conclusions In patients with ulcerative colitis, endoscopic submucosal dissection is suitable for ≥ 11‐mm and non‐polypoid tumors, whereas endoscopic mucosal resection is acceptable for ≤ 10‐mm tumors.
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.