Comparison of the pocket-creation method with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1080/00365521.2024.2440788
Dong Yang, Ke Tao, Qingying He, Nan Zhang, Hong Xu
{"title":"Comparison of the pocket-creation method with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.","authors":"Dong Yang, Ke Tao, Qingying He, Nan Zhang, Hong Xu","doi":"10.1080/00365521.2024.2440788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the pocket-creation method (PCM) with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data of patients who underwent ESD for cecal or ascending colon lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the PCM group and the conventional group according to the method of ESD. Baseline data, endoscopic characteristics, dissection speed, pathological results and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Dissection speed was also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 122 patients were included. The dissection speed in the PCM group was higher than in the conventional group (0.20 [0.11, 0.32] cm<sup>2</sup>/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm<sup>2</sup>/min, Z = -2.813, <i>p</i> = 0.005). The proportion of patients with injury to the muscularis propria layer in the PCM group was lower than in the conventional group, though the difference was not significant (19.4% vs. 29.1%, χ<sup>2</sup> = 1.215, <i>p</i> = 0.270). The univariate analysis showed that low body mass index (BMI), use of the PCM, long lesion diameter, large lesion area, and minimal fibrosis were independent risk factors for fast dissection (all <i>p</i> < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis showed that high dissection speed was associated with the choice to use the PCM, longer lesion diameter, and no fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For cecal and ascending colon lesions, the PCM is a better choice than the conventional method, especially in patients with fibrosis, and large lesion area.</p>","PeriodicalId":21461,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"110-115"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2440788","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the pocket-creation method (PCM) with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.

Methods: The data of patients who underwent ESD for cecal or ascending colon lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the PCM group and the conventional group according to the method of ESD. Baseline data, endoscopic characteristics, dissection speed, pathological results and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Dissection speed was also analyzed.

Results: Overall, 122 patients were included. The dissection speed in the PCM group was higher than in the conventional group (0.20 [0.11, 0.32] cm2/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm2/min, Z = -2.813, p = 0.005). The proportion of patients with injury to the muscularis propria layer in the PCM group was lower than in the conventional group, though the difference was not significant (19.4% vs. 29.1%, χ2 = 1.215, p = 0.270). The univariate analysis showed that low body mass index (BMI), use of the PCM, long lesion diameter, large lesion area, and minimal fibrosis were independent risk factors for fast dissection (all p < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis showed that high dissection speed was associated with the choice to use the PCM, longer lesion diameter, and no fibrosis.

Conclusion: For cecal and ascending colon lesions, the PCM is a better choice than the conventional method, especially in patients with fibrosis, and large lesion area.

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
造袋法与传统内镜下粘膜下夹层法在盲肠及升结肠病变切除术中的比较。
目的:比较内镜下粘膜下剥离术(ESD)与造袋术(PCM)在盲肠及升结肠病变切除术中的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析盲肠或升结肠病变行ESD的患者资料。按照ESD方法将患者分为PCM组和常规组。比较两组患者的基线资料、内镜特征、剥离速度、病理结果及不良事件。分析了解剖速度。结果:共纳入122例患者。PCM组解剖速度明显高于常规组(0.20 [0.11,0.32]cm2/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm2/min, Z = -2.813, p = 0.005)。PCM组固有肌层损伤比例低于常规组,但差异无统计学意义(19.4% vs 29.1%, χ2 = 1.215, p = 0.270)。单因素分析显示,体重指数(BMI)低、使用PCM、病变直径长、病变面积大、纤维化小是快速夹层的独立危险因素(均p)。结论:对于盲肠和升结肠病变,PCM是一种较好的选择,特别是对于纤维化、病变面积大的患者。
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
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
222
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology is one of the most important journals for international medical research in gastroenterology and hepatology with international contributors, Editorial Board, and distribution
期刊最新文献
The impact of biliary drainage on chemotherapy initiation and survival in patients with non-resected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based study in the Netherlands. High-dose intravenous iron improves quality of life in patients with inflammatory Bowel disease and iron deficiency. Development and validation of a novel clinical decision support tool for sustained remission in Crohn's disease: a multi-center real-world study. Contraindications of steroid treatment in the setting of severe alcohol-associated hepatitis: are they absolute contraindications? Letter to the editor on 'development and validation of a new model for predicting malignant pancreatic cystic lesions based on clinical and EUS characteristics'.
×
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:604180095
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