No abstract

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is useful for en bloc resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms to ensure accurate histologic diagnoses. However, colorectal ESD is associated with a high frequency of adverse events (AEs). We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of prophylactic clip closure (PCC) of mucosal defects for AEs after colorectal ESD. Patients and methods  This study included 197 patients with 211 lesions who underwent colorectal ESD between June 2010 and August 2016. Patients who had delayed perforation, delayed bleeding, abdominal pain, or fever were defined as AEs after colorectal ESD. Complete PCC was defined as completely sutured mucosal defect using endoclips following colorectal ESD, whereas incomplete PCC was defined as the mucosal defects that did not enable PCC or were partially sutured. Clinical records were retrospectively reviewed and clinical outcomes evaluated. Results  AEs occurred in 29 lesions (13.7 %), including 12 with delayed bleeding, 12 with fever, 2 with abdominal pain, 2 with fever and abdominal pain, and 1 with delayed bleeding and fever. Delayed perforation was not observed in any patient. The frequency of AEs was significantly lower in the group with complete PCC than in the group with incomplete PCC (7.3 % [9/123] vs. 22.7 % [20/88]; P  < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that AEs after colorectal ESD were significantly associated with tumor size and submucosal fibrosis. Subgroup analysis among the resected specimen size of < 40 mm revealed that there was no significant difference in AEs between the 2 groups (5.6 % [6/107] vs. 17.8 % [8/45]; P  = 0.069). However, the frequency of fever with complete PCC was significantly lower than that with incomplete PCC (2.8 % [3/107] vs. 13.3 % [6/45]; P  = 0.020). Conclusions  Tumor size and submucosal fibrosis were independent risk factors for AEs after colorectal ESD. PCC may be effective in minimizing AEs after colorectal ESD, especially the frequency of fever.

No abstract

No abstract

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 < 0.05). The mean period of the hospitalization was also significantly longer in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (3.7 ± 0.9 d vs 2.8 ± 1.5 d, P < 0.05). Postoperative bleeding was occurred in one patient in the ESMR-L group.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.