Literature DB >> 21448852

Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors.

E S Kim1, K B Cho, K S Park, K I Lee, B K Jang, W J Chung, J S Hwang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although perforation of the colon is known as one of the main complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumor management, factors predictive of perforation have not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with perforation during colorectal ESD.
METHODS: Patients with colorectal tumors undergoing ESD were enrolled and their records were reviewed retrospectively. Age, sex, co-morbidity, medication history, procedure time, resection method, tumor size, location, gross morphology, the presence of fibrosis, and histologic findings were included as possible risk factors. In the cases where perforation had occurred, factors associated with the duration of hospitalization were analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred eight lesions in 108 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study (68 patients were male; mean patient age was 63.01 ± 10.71 years). Mean tumor size was 27.59 ± 10.10 mm (range: 8 - 53 mm). Laterally spreading tumor was the most common type (75 %), followed by the protruding type (25 %). Procedure time was 61.95 ± 41.90 minutes (range: 5 - 198 minutes). Complete en bloc resection was achieved for 85 lesions (78.7 %). Perforation occurred in 22 patients (20.4 %). Multivariate analysis confirmed that tumor size [odds ratio (OR): 1.084; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.158; P = 0.017] and the presence of fibrosis (OR: 4.551; 95 %CI: 1.092 - 18.960; P = 0.037) were independent risk factors for perforation. All cases of perforation were managed with nonsurgical treatment. Younger age and abdominal pain appeared to be related to prolonged hospitalization.
CONCLUSION: Tumor size and fibrosis are important factors related to complications during colorectal ESD. Younger age and development of abdominal pain can predict the hospital course in patients with perforation after ESD. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21448852     DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  55 in total

Review 1.  Tips for safety in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Naohisa Yoshida; Yuji Naito; Takaaki Murakami; Ryohei Hirose; Kiyoshi Ogiso; Yutaka Inada; Rafiz Abdul Rani; Mitsuo Kishimoto; Masayoshi Nakanishi; Yoshito Itoh
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-04

2.  Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Koichiro Sato; Sayo Ito; Tomoyuki Kitagawa; Mitsuru Kato; Kenji Tominaga; Takeshi Suzuki; Iruru Maetani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Factors associated with technical difficulties and adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: retrospective exploratory factor analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort.

Authors:  Yoji Takeuchi; Hiroyasu Iishi; Shinji Tanaka; Yutaka Saito; Hiroaki Ikematsu; Shin-Ei Kudo; Yasushi Sano; Takashi Hisabe; Naohisa Yahagi; Yusuke Saitoh; Masahiro Igarashi; Kiyonori Kobayashi; Hiroo Yamano; Seiji Shimizu; Osamu Tsuruta; Yuji Inoue; Toshiaki Watanabe; Hisashi Nakamura; Takahiro Fujii; Noriya Uedo; Toshio Shimokawa; Hideki Ishikawa; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Clinical outcomes for patients with perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection of laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum.

Authors:  Jung Yoon Yoon; Jeong Hwan Kim; Ji Young Lee; Sung Noh Hong; Sun-Young Lee; In-Kyung Sung; Hyung Seok Park; Chan Sup Shim; Hye Seung Han
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Quality in upper gastrointestinal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Authors:  Flaminia Purchiaroni; Guido Costamagna; Cesare Hassan
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-07

Review 6.  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures.

Authors:  Katsumi Yamamoto; Tomoki Michida; Tsutomu Nishida; Shiro Hayashi; Masafumi Naito; Toshifumi Ito
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10-10

7.  Risk factors for perforations associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection in gastric lesions: emphasis on perforation type.

Authors:  Jun Hwan Yoo; Sung Jae Shin; Kee Myung Lee; Jae Myoung Choi; Jeong Ook Wi; Dong Hoon Kim; Sun Gyo Lim; Jae Chul Hwang; Jae Youn Cheong; Byung Moo Yoo; Kwang Jae Lee; Jin Hong Kim; Sung Won Cho
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Comparison of clinical outcomes among different endoscopic resection methods for treating colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Yun Jung Kim; Eun Soo Kim; Kwang Bum Cho; Kyung Sik Park; Byoung Kuk Jang; Woo Jin Chung; Jae Seok Hwang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Colorectal lateral spreading tumor subtypes: clinicopathology and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Authors:  Mei-Dong Xu; Xiao-Yun Wang; Quan-Lin Li; Ping-Hong Zhou; Yi-Qun Zhang; Yun-Shi Zhong; Wei-Feng Chen; Li-Li Ma; Wen-Zheng Qin; Jian-Wei Hu; Li-Qing Yao
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Technical difficulty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Takeshi Mizushima; Mototsugu Kato; Ichiro Iwanaga; Fumiyuki Sato; Kimitoshi Kubo; Nobuyuki Ehira; Minoru Uebayashi; Shouko Ono; Manabu Nakagawa; Katsuhiro Mabe; Yuichi Shimizu; Naoya Sakamoto
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.