胃低级别上皮内瘤变的内镜射频消融与氩等离子凝固的比较:一项大规模回顾性研究。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2022-06-22 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/2349940
Nanjun Wang, Ningli Chai, Longsong Li, Huikai Li, Yaqi Zhai, Xiuxue Feng, Shengzhen Liu, Wengang Zhang, Enqiang Linghu
{"title":"胃低级别上皮内瘤变的内镜射频消融与氩等离子凝固的比较:一项大规模回顾性研究。","authors":"Nanjun Wang,&nbsp;Ningli Chai,&nbsp;Longsong Li,&nbsp;Huikai Li,&nbsp;Yaqi Zhai,&nbsp;Xiuxue Feng,&nbsp;Shengzhen Liu,&nbsp;Wengang Zhang,&nbsp;Enqiang Linghu","doi":"10.1155/2022/2349940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) is a precancerous lesion of gastric cancer. Endoscopic therapies represented by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been applied to treat gastric LGIN in recent years. However, no comparative study examining the effectiveness and safety profiles of RFA and APC has been reported.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center, large-scale, retrospective study, including 73 and 50 patients treated with RFA and APC, respectively, was conducted in the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from October 2015 to October 2020, with a two-year follow-up. Effectiveness, complications, operative factors, and other data were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 2 years of follow-up, cure, relapse, recurrence, and progression rates were 90.4%, 9.6%, 9.6%, and 2.7% in the RFA group, respectively, versus 90%, 10%, 12%, and 4% in the APC group, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all <i>p</i> > 0.05). However, the mean lesion size was significantly larger in the RFA group (2.6 ± 1.0 cm) than in the APC group (1.5 ± 0.6 cm) (<i>p</i> < 0.001); there was also a significant difference in the composition ratio of large lesions between the two groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). No serious postoperative complications showed in either group, and the abdominal pain was the most common symptom in the short term after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RFA and APC are both safe and effective destructive therapies for gastric LGIN. RFA is more suitable for flat and large lesions, while APC is more suitable for small lesions, especially those with slight local uplift or depression. An intraoperative submucosal injection is expected to be an effective method for relieving postoperative abdominal pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":48755,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":"2349940"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9242788/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation and Argon Plasma Coagulation in Patients with Gastric Low-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Large-Scale Retrospective Study.\",\"authors\":\"Nanjun Wang,&nbsp;Ningli Chai,&nbsp;Longsong Li,&nbsp;Huikai Li,&nbsp;Yaqi Zhai,&nbsp;Xiuxue Feng,&nbsp;Shengzhen Liu,&nbsp;Wengang Zhang,&nbsp;Enqiang Linghu\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/2349940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) is a precancerous lesion of gastric cancer. Endoscopic therapies represented by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been applied to treat gastric LGIN in recent years. However, no comparative study examining the effectiveness and safety profiles of RFA and APC has been reported.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center, large-scale, retrospective study, including 73 and 50 patients treated with RFA and APC, respectively, was conducted in the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from October 2015 to October 2020, with a two-year follow-up. Effectiveness, complications, operative factors, and other data were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 2 years of follow-up, cure, relapse, recurrence, and progression rates were 90.4%, 9.6%, 9.6%, and 2.7% in the RFA group, respectively, versus 90%, 10%, 12%, and 4% in the APC group, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all <i>p</i> > 0.05). However, the mean lesion size was significantly larger in the RFA group (2.6 ± 1.0 cm) than in the APC group (1.5 ± 0.6 cm) (<i>p</i> < 0.001); there was also a significant difference in the composition ratio of large lesions between the two groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001). No serious postoperative complications showed in either group, and the abdominal pain was the most common symptom in the short term after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RFA and APC are both safe and effective destructive therapies for gastric LGIN. RFA is more suitable for flat and large lesions, while APC is more suitable for small lesions, especially those with slight local uplift or depression. An intraoperative submucosal injection is expected to be an effective method for relieving postoperative abdominal pain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2349940\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9242788/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2349940\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2349940","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胃低级别上皮内瘤变(LGIN)是胃癌的癌前病变。近年来,以射频消融(RFA)和氩等离子凝固(APC)为代表的内镜治疗已被应用于胃LGIN的治疗。然而,目前还没有关于RFA和APC的有效性和安全性的比较研究报道。方法:选取2015年10月至2020年10月在中国人民解放军总医院第一医学中心分别接受RFA和APC治疗的患者73例和50例,采用单中心、大规模、回顾性研究,随访2年。评估疗效、并发症、手术因素及其他数据。结果:随访2年时,RFA组的治愈率、复发率、复发率、进展率分别为90.4%、9.6%、9.6%、2.7%,APC组的治愈率分别为90%、10%、12%、4%,两组间差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。RFA组的平均病灶大小(2.6±1.0 cm)明显大于APC组(1.5±0.6 cm) (p < 0.001);两组间大病灶组成比例也有显著差异(p < 0.001)。两组均未出现严重的术后并发症,术后短期内腹痛是最常见的症状。结论:RFA和APC均是安全有效的胃LGIN破坏性治疗方法。RFA更适合扁平、大的病灶,APC更适合小的病灶,尤其是局部有轻微隆起或凹陷的病灶。术中粘膜下注射有望成为缓解术后腹痛的有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Comparison of Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation and Argon Plasma Coagulation in Patients with Gastric Low-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Large-Scale Retrospective Study.

Background: Gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) is a precancerous lesion of gastric cancer. Endoscopic therapies represented by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been applied to treat gastric LGIN in recent years. However, no comparative study examining the effectiveness and safety profiles of RFA and APC has been reported.

Methods: A single-center, large-scale, retrospective study, including 73 and 50 patients treated with RFA and APC, respectively, was conducted in the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital from October 2015 to October 2020, with a two-year follow-up. Effectiveness, complications, operative factors, and other data were assessed.

Results: At 2 years of follow-up, cure, relapse, recurrence, and progression rates were 90.4%, 9.6%, 9.6%, and 2.7% in the RFA group, respectively, versus 90%, 10%, 12%, and 4% in the APC group, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups (all p > 0.05). However, the mean lesion size was significantly larger in the RFA group (2.6 ± 1.0 cm) than in the APC group (1.5 ± 0.6 cm) (p < 0.001); there was also a significant difference in the composition ratio of large lesions between the two groups (p < 0.001). No serious postoperative complications showed in either group, and the abdominal pain was the most common symptom in the short term after surgery.

Conclusions: RFA and APC are both safe and effective destructive therapies for gastric LGIN. RFA is more suitable for flat and large lesions, while APC is more suitable for small lesions, especially those with slight local uplift or depression. An intraoperative submucosal injection is expected to be an effective method for relieving postoperative abdominal pain.

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
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of gastroenterology and liver disease - medicine and surgery. The Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is sponsored by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver.
期刊最新文献
Acute Variceal Hemorrhage in Germany-A Nationwide Study of 65,357 Hospitalized Cases: Variceal Hemorrhage in Germany. The Predictive Value of Time-Varying Noninvasive Scores on Long-Term Prognosis of NAFLD in South Korea. Feasibility and Acceptability of Antenatal Hepatitis C Screening: A Pilot Study. Primary Care Support Tools for Digestive Health Care: A Mixed Method Study. Long-Term Treatment with Bulevirtide in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis D and Advanced Chronic Liver Disease.
×
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