Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with gel immersion technique for superficial esophageal neoplasms.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1111/jgh.16800
Taro Iwatsubo, Akitoshi Hakoda, Noriaki Sugawara, Shun Sasaki, Noriyuki Nakajima, Yosuke Mori, Hironori Tanaka, Kazuhiro Ota, Toshihisa Takeuchi, Hiroki Nishikawa
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with gel immersion technique for superficial esophageal neoplasms.","authors":"Taro Iwatsubo, Akitoshi Hakoda, Noriaki Sugawara, Shun Sasaki, Noriyuki Nakajima, Yosuke Mori, Hironori Tanaka, Kazuhiro Ota, Toshihisa Takeuchi, Hiroki Nishikawa","doi":"10.1111/jgh.16800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Gel immersion (GI) endoscopy provides a good visual field in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, its clinical outcomes are poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between esophageal gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (GI-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) to determine the safety and efficacy of GI-ESD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16800","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: Gel immersion (GI) endoscopy provides a good visual field in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, its clinical outcomes are poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between esophageal gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (GI-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) to determine the safety and efficacy of GI-ESD.

Methods: The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.

Results: A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.

Conclusions: Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.

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
采用凝胶浸泡技术进行内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗浅表食管肿瘤的安全性和有效性。
背景和目的:凝胶浸泡(GI)内镜为内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)提供了良好的视野;然而,人们对其临床效果知之甚少。本研究旨在比较食管凝胶浸泡内镜黏膜下剥离术(GI-ESD)和传统ESD(C-ESD)的治疗效果,以确定GI-ESD的安全性和有效性:方法:回顾性研究了2021年4月至2023年3月期间在日本一家三级中心接受食管ESD的71例连续患者的数据。使用额外的灌洗管进行消化道手术。采用逆治疗概率加权法(IPTW)比较了 GI-ESD 组和 C-ESD 组的治疗结果,以控制混杂因素:结果:ESD共治疗了75例浅表食管上皮肿瘤(C-ESD组41例,GI-ESD组34例)。GI-ESD 组的平均手术时间明显短于 C-ESD 组(59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 分钟,P = 0.008)。经 IPTW 调整后,GI-ESD 组和 C-ESD 组的平均手术时间分别为 62.6 ± 36.6 分钟和 82.9 ± 41.7 分钟(P = 0.037),GI-ESD 组肌层损伤发生率为 4.2%,C-ESD 组为 30.6%(P = 0.001)。在多变量分析中,标本大小≥30 毫米(几率比[OR]:9.44,95% 置信区间[CI]:2.46-36.30,P = 0.001)与较长的手术时间(≥90 分钟)呈正相关,而 GI-ESD (OR:0.19,95%CI:0.05-0.68,P = 0.011)呈负相关:结论:食道胃肠道放电术在安全性和时间效率方面可能很有用。结论:食道 GI-ESD 在安全性和时间效率方面可能是有用的,GI 技术可能是食道 ESD 的一种选择。
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
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Success Rate and Adverse Effects of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Versus Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilation in Large Common Bile Duct Stones Removal. A Propensity Scores Inverse Weighting Analysis. Incidence of Cholecystitis After Endoscopic Biliary Drainage Using a Low Axial Force Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stent in Patients With Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Prospective Study. PANoptosis-related genes: Molecular insights into immune dysregulation in ulcerative colitis. Bowel Colonization With Carbapenem-Resistant Bacteria Is Associated With Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure. Cardiometabolic risk factors and coronary atherosclerosis progression in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: the influential role of quantity over type.
×
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