Minimally invasive approaches for the management of "difficult" colonic polyps.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2011-01-01 Epub Date: 2011-06-28 DOI:10.1155/2011/682793
R Alejandro Cruz, Madhu Ragupathi, Rodrigo Pedraza, T Bartley Pickron, Anne T Le, Eric M Haas
{"title":"Minimally invasive approaches for the management of \"difficult\" colonic polyps.","authors":"R Alejandro Cruz,&nbsp;Madhu Ragupathi,&nbsp;Rodrigo Pedraza,&nbsp;T Bartley Pickron,&nbsp;Anne T Le,&nbsp;Eric M Haas","doi":"10.1155/2011/682793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditionally, patients with colonic polyps not amenable to endoscopic removal require open colectomy for management. We evaluated our experience with minimally invasive approaches including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic polypectomy (LAEP), and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC). Patients referred for surgery for colonic polyps were selected for one of three minimally invasive modalities. A total of 123 patients were referred for resection of \"difficult\" polyps. Thirty underwent EMR, 25 underwent LAEP, and 68 underwent LAC. Of those selected to undergo EMR or LAEP, 76.4% were successfully managed without colon resection. The remaining 23.6% underwent LAC. Nine complications were encountered, including two requiring reoperative intervention. Of the 123 patients, three were found to have malignant disease on final pathology. Surgical resection can be avoided in a significant number of patients with \"difficult\" polyps referred for surgery by performing EMR and LAEP. In those who require surgery, minimally invasive resection can be achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2011 ","pages":"682793"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2011/682793","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/682793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

Traditionally, patients with colonic polyps not amenable to endoscopic removal require open colectomy for management. We evaluated our experience with minimally invasive approaches including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic polypectomy (LAEP), and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC). Patients referred for surgery for colonic polyps were selected for one of three minimally invasive modalities. A total of 123 patients were referred for resection of "difficult" polyps. Thirty underwent EMR, 25 underwent LAEP, and 68 underwent LAC. Of those selected to undergo EMR or LAEP, 76.4% were successfully managed without colon resection. The remaining 23.6% underwent LAC. Nine complications were encountered, including two requiring reoperative intervention. Of the 123 patients, three were found to have malignant disease on final pathology. Surgical resection can be avoided in a significant number of patients with "difficult" polyps referred for surgery by performing EMR and LAEP. In those who require surgery, minimally invasive resection can be achieved.

Abstract Image

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
微创方法治疗“疑难”结肠息肉。
传统上,不适合内镜切除的结肠息肉患者需要开腹结肠切除术进行治疗。我们评估了微创入路的经验,包括内镜粘膜切除术(EMR)、腹腔镜辅助内镜息肉切除术(LAEP)和腹腔镜辅助结肠切除术(LAC)。转介结肠息肉手术的患者选择三种微创方式之一。共有123例患者接受了“困难”息肉切除术。EMR 30例,LAEP 25例,LAC 68例。在选择EMR或LAEP的患者中,76.4%的患者在不切除结肠的情况下成功治疗。其余23.6%行LAC。9例出现并发症,其中2例需要再手术干预。在123例患者中,3例在最终病理中发现恶性疾病。通过EMR和LAEP,可以避免相当数量的“难治性”息肉患者手术切除。对于那些需要手术的患者,可以实现微创切除。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retracted: Comparison of Two Entry Methods for Laparoscopic Port Entry: Technical Point of View Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for Evaluation of Lymph Nodes: A Single Center Experience. Unsuspected Small-Bowel Crohn's Disease in Elderly Patients Diagnosed by Video Capsule Endoscopy. Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study. Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.
×
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