单夹牵引辅助内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗结肠肿瘤的有效性和安全性:倾向得分匹配分析

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annali italiani di chirurgia Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62713/aic.3441
Xiaotan Dou, Danndan Zhu, Chunrong Wang, Min Chen, Xiaoqi Zhang, Lei Wang, Chenggong Yu
{"title":"单夹牵引辅助内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗结肠肿瘤的有效性和安全性:倾向得分匹配分析","authors":"Xiaotan Dou, Danndan Zhu, Chunrong Wang, Min Chen, Xiaoqi Zhang, Lei Wang, Chenggong Yu","doi":"10.62713/aic.3441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colonic neoplasms is a technically intricate procedure. Internal traction using a single clip has emerged as a promising supportive technique for colonic ESD. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ESD with and without the aid of single-clip traction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study encompassed 36 patients who underwent single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD and 66 who underwent the traditional method of colonic ESD at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University. We employed the propensity score-matching method to mitigate disparities in resected specimen size and tumor location. Post-matching, we comprehensively assessed treatment outcomes and incidence of adverse events between the two treatment groups (single clip traction-assisted ESD (scESD) and conventional ESD (cESD)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching, we observed 34 matched pairs. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups regarding the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and curative rate. However, the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (20.00 [Interquatile Range (IQR)] (16.00-32.50) minutes vs 31.50 [IQR] (17.00-54.00) minutes, p = 0.0474). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in dissection speed in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (0.29 [IQR] (0.20-0.45) mm2/min vs 0.19 [IQR] (0.11-0.35) mm2/min, p = 0.0015). All lesions were resected in a single piece. Among the propensity-score-matched patients, only those treated with single clip traction-assisted ESD exhibited faster dissection speeds (p = 0.015). Furthermore, there were no substantial differences in adverse events such as intraoperative perforation, delayed perforation, or delayed bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD is preferable to traditional colonic ESD, owing to its shorter procedure duration and faster dissection speed.</p>","PeriodicalId":8210,"journal":{"name":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","volume":"95 5","pages":"956-962"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Single Clip Traction Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colonic Neoplasms: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaotan Dou, Danndan Zhu, Chunrong Wang, Min Chen, Xiaoqi Zhang, Lei Wang, Chenggong Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.62713/aic.3441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colonic neoplasms is a technically intricate procedure. Internal traction using a single clip has emerged as a promising supportive technique for colonic ESD. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ESD with and without the aid of single-clip traction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study encompassed 36 patients who underwent single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD and 66 who underwent the traditional method of colonic ESD at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University. We employed the propensity score-matching method to mitigate disparities in resected specimen size and tumor location. Post-matching, we comprehensively assessed treatment outcomes and incidence of adverse events between the two treatment groups (single clip traction-assisted ESD (scESD) and conventional ESD (cESD)).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching, we observed 34 matched pairs. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups regarding the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and curative rate. However, the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (20.00 [Interquatile Range (IQR)] (16.00-32.50) minutes vs 31.50 [IQR] (17.00-54.00) minutes, p = 0.0474). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in dissection speed in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (0.29 [IQR] (0.20-0.45) mm2/min vs 0.19 [IQR] (0.11-0.35) mm2/min, p = 0.0015). All lesions were resected in a single piece. Among the propensity-score-matched patients, only those treated with single clip traction-assisted ESD exhibited faster dissection speeds (p = 0.015). Furthermore, there were no substantial differences in adverse events such as intraoperative perforation, delayed perforation, or delayed bleeding.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD is preferable to traditional colonic ESD, owing to its shorter procedure duration and faster dissection speed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"volume\":\"95 5\",\"pages\":\"956-962\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annali italiani di chirurgia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali italiani di chirurgia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62713/aic.3441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:结肠肿瘤的内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)是一项技术复杂的手术。使用单个夹子进行内牵引已成为结肠ESD的一种很有前途的辅助技术。因此,本研究旨在全面评估和比较有无单夹牵引ESD的有效性和安全性:这项回顾性研究涵盖了在南京医科大学鼓楼医院临床医学院接受单夹牵引辅助结肠ESD的36例患者和接受传统方法结肠ESD的66例患者。我们采用倾向得分匹配法来减少切除标本大小和肿瘤位置的差异。匹配后,我们全面评估了两个治疗组(单夹牵引辅助ESD(scESD)和传统ESD(cESD))的治疗效果和不良反应发生率:结果:经过倾向评分匹配,我们观察到34对匹配的患者。两组患者的全切率、完全切除率和治愈率无明显差异。但是,单夹牵引辅助 ESD 组的手术时间明显短于传统 ESD 组(20.00 [波动范围 (IQR)] (16.00-32.50) 分钟 vs 31.50 [IQR] (17.00-54.00) 分钟,P = 0.0474)。此外,与传统 ESD 组相比,单夹牵引辅助 ESD 组的剥离速度明显提高(0.29 [IQR] (0.20-0.45) mm2/min vs 0.19 [IQR] (0.11-0.35) mm2/min, p = 0.0015)。所有病灶均一次性切除。在倾向分数匹配的患者中,只有采用单夹牵引辅助ESD治疗的患者的剥离速度更快(p = 0.015)。此外,术中穿孔、延迟穿孔或延迟出血等不良事件也没有实质性差异:我们的研究结果表明,单夹牵引辅助结肠ESD比传统结肠ESD更好,因为其手术时间更短,剥离速度更快。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy and Safety of Single Clip Traction Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colonic Neoplasms: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Aim: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colonic neoplasms is a technically intricate procedure. Internal traction using a single clip has emerged as a promising supportive technique for colonic ESD. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ESD with and without the aid of single-clip traction.

Methods: This retrospective study encompassed 36 patients who underwent single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD and 66 who underwent the traditional method of colonic ESD at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University. We employed the propensity score-matching method to mitigate disparities in resected specimen size and tumor location. Post-matching, we comprehensively assessed treatment outcomes and incidence of adverse events between the two treatment groups (single clip traction-assisted ESD (scESD) and conventional ESD (cESD)).

Results: After propensity score matching, we observed 34 matched pairs. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups regarding the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and curative rate. However, the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (20.00 [Interquatile Range (IQR)] (16.00-32.50) minutes vs 31.50 [IQR] (17.00-54.00) minutes, p = 0.0474). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in dissection speed in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (0.29 [IQR] (0.20-0.45) mm2/min vs 0.19 [IQR] (0.11-0.35) mm2/min, p = 0.0015). All lesions were resected in a single piece. Among the propensity-score-matched patients, only those treated with single clip traction-assisted ESD exhibited faster dissection speeds (p = 0.015). Furthermore, there were no substantial differences in adverse events such as intraoperative perforation, delayed perforation, or delayed bleeding.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD is preferable to traditional colonic ESD, owing to its shorter procedure duration and faster dissection speed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annali Italiani di Chirurgia is a bimonthly journal and covers all aspects of surgery:elective, emergency and experimental surgery, as well as problems involving technology, teaching, organization and forensic medicine. The articles are published in Italian or English, though English is preferred because it facilitates the international diffusion of the journal (v.Guidelines for Authors and Norme per gli Autori). The articles published are divided into three main sections:editorials, original articles, and case reports and innovations.
期刊最新文献
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of Esophagus with Lung Metastasis: Case Report. Adrenocortical Adenoma Arising from Adrenohepatic Fusion: A Mimic of Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Case Report. Application Evaluation of Fluorouracil Intraperitoneal Perfusion Chemotherapy in Combination with Intravenous Chemotherapy in Patients after Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer. Comparison of Hem-o-lok and Endoloop for Appendiceal Stump Closure in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: An Observational Retrospective Study. Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression and Full Endoscopic Lamina Fenestration Decompression in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Unilateral Radicular Pain: A Retrospective 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