BACKGROUND: Transanal local excision (LE) is a well-established treatment option for early rectal neoplasms not amenable to complete colonoscopic removal. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been introduced recently as a novel procedure that enables en bloc resection of large rectal neoplasms. To date, no report comparing the two approaches can be found in the literature. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between ESD and LE for early rectal neoplasms. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 14 patients with early rectal neoplasms deemed not feasible for en bloc endoscopic resection using conventional techniques underwent ESD. They were compared with a matched cohort of 30 patients who had early rectal neoplasms and underwent LE between 2000 and 2009. Short-term clinical outcomes including postprocedure recovery and morbidity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean lesion size was comparable between the ESD and LE groups (2.9 vs 2.6 cm; P = 0.423), but the mean distance of the lesions from the anal verge was greater in the ESD group (8.6 vs 5.0 cm; P = 0.001). En bloc resection was achieved for 12 patients (85.7%) in the ESD group and for all the patients in the LE group. The ESD group exhibited a trend toward a longer operative time (77.5 vs 50.0 min; P = 0.081) but lower morbidity (7.1 vs 33.3%; P = 0.076). The time to full ambulation was shorter in the ESD group (0 vs 1 day; P = 0.005), but the hospital stay was similar in the two groups (2.5 vs 4.0 days; P = 0.129). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of early rectal neoplasms, ESD offers better short-term clinical outcomes in terms of faster recovery and possibly lower morbidity than LE. Further prospective studies with a larger sample are needed to validate the benefits of rectal ESD.
BACKGROUND: Transanal local excision (LE) is a well-established treatment option for early rectal neoplasms not amenable to complete colonoscopic removal. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been introduced recently as a novel procedure that enables en bloc resection of large rectal neoplasms. To date, no report comparing the two approaches can be found in the literature. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between ESD and LE for early rectal neoplasms. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, 14 patients with early rectal neoplasms deemed not feasible for en bloc endoscopic resection using conventional techniques underwent ESD. They were compared with a matched cohort of 30 patients who had early rectal neoplasms and underwent LE between 2000 and 2009. Short-term clinical outcomes including postprocedure recovery and morbidity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean lesion size was comparable between the ESD and LE groups (2.9 vs 2.6 cm; P = 0.423), but the mean distance of the lesions from the anal verge was greater in the ESD group (8.6 vs 5.0 cm; P = 0.001). En bloc resection was achieved for 12 patients (85.7%) in the ESD group and for all the patients in the LE group. The ESD group exhibited a trend toward a longer operative time (77.5 vs 50.0 min; P = 0.081) but lower morbidity (7.1 vs 33.3%; P = 0.076). The time to full ambulation was shorter in the ESD group (0 vs 1 day; P = 0.005), but the hospital stay was similar in the two groups (2.5 vs 4.0 days; P = 0.129). CONCLUSION: For the treatment of early rectal neoplasms, ESD offers better short-term clinical outcomes in terms of faster recovery and possibly lower morbidity than LE. Further prospective studies with a larger sample are needed to validate the benefits of rectal ESD.
Authors: Thomas R McCarty; Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi; Kelly E Hathorn; Christopher C Thompson; Hiroyuki Aihara Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sophie Sf Hon; Simon Sm Ng; Tiffany Cl Wong; Philip Wy Chiu; Tony Wc Mak; W W Leung; Janet Fy Lee Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-11-25
Authors: Michael Amann; Ali Modabber; Jens Burghardt; Christian Stratz; Claudius Falch; Gerhard F Buess; Andreas Kirschniak Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 2.754