Comparison of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q2 SURGERY Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-03 DOI:10.1080/13645706.2024.2330580

Meijiao Lu, Hongxia Cui, Mingjie Qian, Yating Shen, Jianhong Zhu

{"title":"Comparison of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.","authors":"Meijiao Lu, Hongxia Cui, Mingjie Qian, Yating Shen, Jianhong Zhu","doi":"10.1080/13645706.2024.2330580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: This study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), clip-and-snare assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the endoscopic resection of rectal NETs.Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 47 patients with rectal NETs who underwent endoscopic treatment in The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Manifestations of clinic pathological characteristics, complications, procedure time and hospitalization costs were studied.Results: The complete resection rates with CS-EMR and ESD were significantly higher than those with EMR (CS-EMR vs. EMR, p = 0.038; ESD vs. EMR, p = 0.04), but no significant difference was found between the CS-EMR and ESD groups (p = 0.383). The lateral margin was less distant in the CS-EMR group than in the ESD group and there was no difference with regard to vertical margin (lateral margin distance, 1500 ± 3125 vs.3000 ± 3000 μm; vertical margin distance, 400 ± 275 vs.500 ± 500 μm). Compared to ESD, CS-EMR required less operation time (p < 0.01) and money (p < 0.01) and reduced the length of hospital stays (p < 0.01).Conclusions: The CS-EMR technique is more effective and efficient than EMR for small rectal NETs. In addition, CS-EMR reduces procedure time, duration of post-procedure hospitalization and decreases patients' cost compared to ESD while ensuring sufficient vertical margin distances.","PeriodicalId":18537,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"207-214"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2024.2330580","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: This study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), clip-and-snare assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the endoscopic resection of rectal NETs.

Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 47 patients with rectal NETs who underwent endoscopic treatment in The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Manifestations of clinic pathological characteristics, complications, procedure time and hospitalization costs were studied.

Results: The complete resection rates with CS-EMR and ESD were significantly higher than those with EMR (CS-EMR vs. EMR, p = 0.038; ESD vs. EMR, p = 0.04), but no significant difference was found between the CS-EMR and ESD groups (p = 0.383). The lateral margin was less distant in the CS-EMR group than in the ESD group and there was no difference with regard to vertical margin (lateral margin distance, 1500 ± 3125 vs.3000 ± 3000 μm; vertical margin distance, 400 ± 275 vs.500 ± 500 μm). Compared to ESD, CS-EMR required less operation time (p < 0.01) and money (p < 0.01) and reduced the length of hospital stays (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The CS-EMR technique is more effective and efficient than EMR for small rectal NETs. In addition, CS-EMR reduces procedure time, duration of post-procedure hospitalization and decreases patients' cost compared to ESD while ensuring sufficient vertical margin distances.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

直肠神经内分泌肿瘤的内窥镜切除疗法比较。

目的：本研究旨在评估和比较内镜下黏膜切除术（EMR）、夹网辅助内镜下黏膜切除术（CS-EMR）和内镜下黏膜下剥离术（ESD）在内镜下切除直肠NET的有效性和安全性：对47例在苏州大学附属第二医院接受内镜治疗的直肠NETs患者进行回顾性分析。研究了临床病理特征、并发症、手术时间和住院费用：结果：CS-EMR和ESD的完全切除率明显高于EMR（CS-EMR vs. EMR，p = 0.038；ESD vs. EMR，p = 0.04），但CS-EMR组和ESD组之间无明显差异（p = 0.383）。与 ESD 组相比，CS-EMR 组的侧缘距离较短，而垂直缘没有差异（侧缘距离，1500 ± 3125 vs.3000 ± 3000 μm；垂直缘距离，400 ± 275 vs.500 ± 500 μm）。与 ESD 相比，CS-EMR 所需的操作时间更短（p p p p 结论）：对于小型直肠 NET，CS-EMR 技术比 EMR 更有效、更高效。此外，与 ESD 相比，CS-EMR 减少了手术时间和术后住院时间，降低了患者的费用，同时确保了足够的垂直边缘距离。

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

Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 医学-外科

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

5.90%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies (MITAT) is an international forum for endoscopic surgeons, interventional radiologists and industrial instrument manufacturers. It is the official journal of the Society for Medical Innovation and Technology (SMIT) whose membership includes representatives from a broad spectrum of medical specialities, instrument manufacturing and research. The journal brings the latest developments and innovations in minimally invasive therapy to its readers. What makes Minimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies unique is that we publish one or two special issues each year, which are devoted to a specific theme. Key topics covered by the journal include: interventional radiology, endoscopic surgery, imaging technology, manipulators and robotics for surgery and education and training for MIS.