Comparison among different techniques for en-bloc resection of rectal lesions: transanal endoscopic surgery vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. full-thickness resection device with Over-The-Scope Clip® System.

IF 1.3 Q3 Medicine Minerva chirurgica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 DOI:10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08298-X
Damiano Bisogni, Roberto Manetti, Luca Talamucci, Francesco Coratti, Riccardo Naspetti, Andrea Valeri, Jacopo Martellucci, Fabio Cianchi
{"title":"Comparison among different techniques for en-bloc resection of rectal lesions: transanal endoscopic surgery vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. full-thickness resection device with Over-The-Scope Clip® System.","authors":"Damiano Bisogni,&nbsp;Roberto Manetti,&nbsp;Luca Talamucci,&nbsp;Francesco Coratti,&nbsp;Riccardo Naspetti,&nbsp;Andrea Valeri,&nbsp;Jacopo Martellucci,&nbsp;Fabio Cianchi","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08298-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of our retrospective study is to compare the efficacy and indications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD) with Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC<sup>®</sup>) System for en-bloc resection of rectal lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study collected 76 cases of rectal neoplasms from a single hospital institution. Primary endpoints were complete en-bloc resection, intraprocedural adverse events, R0 en-bloc resection and an early discharge of the patient. Secondary endpoints included procedure-related adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean tumor sizes were statistically significant smaller among patients treated with FTRD rather than TEM and ESD. TEO and FTRD treated patients experienced a higher en-bloc resection rate, with a shorter procedure time and hospital stay. No significant difference concerning the R0 resection was found. TEO and FTRD recorded lower perforation rates as compared to ESD, whereas no difference emerged concerning the bleeding rate and the post-polypectomy syndrome rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that each technique has specific features, so that each one offers advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, all of them ensure high en-bloc resection rates, whereas no difference exists for R0 resection rate. TEO provides the possibility to remove low rectal large lesions as compared to ESD and FTRD.</p>","PeriodicalId":18714,"journal":{"name":"Minerva chirurgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva chirurgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08298-X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The aim of our retrospective study is to compare the efficacy and indications of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD) with Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC®) System for en-bloc resection of rectal lesions.

Methods: This study collected 76 cases of rectal neoplasms from a single hospital institution. Primary endpoints were complete en-bloc resection, intraprocedural adverse events, R0 en-bloc resection and an early discharge of the patient. Secondary endpoints included procedure-related adverse events.

Results: Mean tumor sizes were statistically significant smaller among patients treated with FTRD rather than TEM and ESD. TEO and FTRD treated patients experienced a higher en-bloc resection rate, with a shorter procedure time and hospital stay. No significant difference concerning the R0 resection was found. TEO and FTRD recorded lower perforation rates as compared to ESD, whereas no difference emerged concerning the bleeding rate and the post-polypectomy syndrome rate.

Conclusions: Our study showed that each technique has specific features, so that each one offers advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, all of them ensure high en-bloc resection rates, whereas no difference exists for R0 resection rate. TEO provides the possibility to remove low rectal large lesions as compared to ESD and FTRD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直肠病变整体切除不同技术的比较:经肛门内镜手术与内镜粘膜下剥离与全层切除装置与超镜夹®系统。
背景:我们回顾性研究的目的是比较经肛门内镜显微手术(TEM)、内镜粘膜下剥离(ESD)和内镜全层切除装置(FTRD)与超镜夹(OTSC®)系统在直肠病灶整体切除中的疗效和适应症。方法:本研究收集了76例直肠肿瘤病例。主要终点为完整整块切除、术中不良事件、R0整块切除和患者早期出院。次要终点包括手术相关的不良事件。结果:FTRD治疗患者的平均肿瘤大小比TEM和ESD治疗的患者小,具有统计学意义。TEO和FTRD治疗的患者整体切除率更高,手术时间和住院时间更短。R0切除无显著性差异。与ESD相比,TEO和FTRD的穿孔率较低,而在出血率和息肉切除术后综合征发生率方面没有差异。结论:我们的研究表明,每种技术都有其特定的特点,因此每种技术都有其优点和缺点。尽管如此,它们都保证了较高的整体切除率,而R0切除率没有差异。与ESD和FTRD相比,TEO提供了切除直肠下部大病变的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva chirurgica
Minerva chirurgica 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Chirurgica publishes scientific papers on surgery. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of clinical efficacy of suture-fixation mucopexy in the treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoid. Bottom-up suprapubic approach for robotic right colectomy: technical aspects and preliminary outcomes. Orthotopic liver transplantation for patients with end-stage alcohol-related liver disease and severe acute alcohol-related hepatitis: a concise review. Risk of anastomotic bleeding after left colectomy with preservation of inferior mesenteric artery for diverticular disease: preliminary results. Management of intra- and post-operative complications during TEM/TAMIS procedures. A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1