Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with the Two-Person Method

IF 0.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Journal of Digestive Endoscopy Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1756484
Akinori Sasaki, Yuji Inada, Eriko Yamaguchi, R. Okamoto, Yasuaki Motomura
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with the Two-Person Method","authors":"Akinori Sasaki, Yuji Inada, Eriko Yamaguchi, R. Okamoto, Yasuaki Motomura","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1756484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is useful for removing colon polyps and is generally carried out by one doctor. It is occasionally difficult for colorectal polyps to be removed by EMR. In such cases, EMR is performed by the main doctor and an assistant doctor (the two-person method). However, the efficacy and safety of EMR in the two-person method remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the procedure time and incomplete resection rate (IRR) by the two- and single-person methods of EMR for polyp removal. Materials and Methods  Data from colorectal polyps resected by EMR were reviewed retrospectively and divided into two groups: general procedure/single- ( n  = 215) or two-person method ( n  = 56). The IRR, the procedure time, and the incidence of adverse events were compared between these methods. Results  A total of 152 patients and 271 lesions were included in this study. The mean procedure time for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the two-person method group than in the general procedure group (median time: 3.38 minutes vs. 6.56 minutes; p  < 0.001). Additionally, the IRR for polyps was significantly lower in the two-person methods group than in the single-person methods group (2/56, 3.6% vs. 47/215, 21.9%; p  = 0.001). None of the patients in the two-person method group presented with delayed bleeding. Conclusions  The two-person method for EMR was more effective than the single-person method. Therefore, this method may replace the conventional one-operator method in the future.","PeriodicalId":43098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1756484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objectives  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is useful for removing colon polyps and is generally carried out by one doctor. It is occasionally difficult for colorectal polyps to be removed by EMR. In such cases, EMR is performed by the main doctor and an assistant doctor (the two-person method). However, the efficacy and safety of EMR in the two-person method remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the procedure time and incomplete resection rate (IRR) by the two- and single-person methods of EMR for polyp removal. Materials and Methods  Data from colorectal polyps resected by EMR were reviewed retrospectively and divided into two groups: general procedure/single- ( n  = 215) or two-person method ( n  = 56). The IRR, the procedure time, and the incidence of adverse events were compared between these methods. Results  A total of 152 patients and 271 lesions were included in this study. The mean procedure time for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the two-person method group than in the general procedure group (median time: 3.38 minutes vs. 6.56 minutes; p  < 0.001). Additionally, the IRR for polyps was significantly lower in the two-person methods group than in the single-person methods group (2/56, 3.6% vs. 47/215, 21.9%; p  = 0.001). None of the patients in the two-person method group presented with delayed bleeding. Conclusions  The two-person method for EMR was more effective than the single-person method. Therefore, this method may replace the conventional one-operator method in the future.
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
内镜下二人法粘膜切除术的疗效和安全性
抽象目标 内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)可用于切除结肠息肉,通常由一名医生进行。结肠息肉有时很难通过EMR切除。在这种情况下,EMR由主医生和助理医生执行(两人方法)。然而,EMR在两人方法中的疗效和安全性尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较两人和单人EMR切除息肉的手术时间和不完全切除率(IRR)。材料和方法 回顾性分析了经EMR切除的结直肠息肉的数据,并将其分为两组:常规手术/单次(n = 215)或两人方法(n = 56)。比较两种方法的内部收益率、手术时间和不良事件发生率。后果 本研究共纳入152名患者和271个病变。两人法组息肉切除术的平均手术时间明显短于普通手术组(中位时间:3.38 分钟与6.56 分钟p < 0.001)。此外,两人方法组息肉的IRR显著低于单人方法组(2/56,3.6%对47/215,21.9%;p = 0.001)。两人法组中没有一名患者出现延迟出血。结论 EMR的两人方法比单人方法更有效。因此,这种方法可能在未来取代传统的单算子方法。
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
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
Journal of Digestive Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
35
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE) is the official publication of the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India that has over 1500 members. The society comprises of several key clinicians in this field from different parts of the country and has key international speakers in its advisory board. JDE is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, print and online journal publishing quarterly. It focuses on original investigations, reviews, case reports and clinical images as well as key investigations including but not limited to cholangiopancreatography, fluoroscopy, capsule endoscopy etc.
期刊最新文献
Timing It Right: Endoscopic Necrosectomy for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy (EUS-LB): An Endoscopic Solution to the Unmet Needs of Liver Tissue Acquisition and Beyond Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of a Large Rectal Lesion by Using a Novel Traction Device to Facilitate Traction Adjustments Correlative Factors of Severity of Air Bubbles in the Large Intestine during Colonoscopy A Case of Gastric Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue Lymphoma with Special Endoscopic Morphology
×
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