BACKGROUND: The possible risk of colonic perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumors is a barrier to wide application. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the risk and the predictive factors for perforation during ESD procedure. METHODS: Between October 2006 and November 2010, a total of 499 consecutive patients (mean age 60.0 ± 11.3 years) who underwent ESD for large-sized (≥ 20 mm), nonpedunculated colorectal tumor were analyzed. First, incidence rate and clinical course of perforation were evaluated. Second, patient-related variables (age, sex, history of aspirin or antiplatelet agents, and comorbidity), endoscopic variables (tumor size, location, and type), procedure-related variables (experience of procedures, procedure time, and materials of submucosal injection), and pathologic diagnosis were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean size of the lesions was 28.9 mm. The overall en bloc resection rate was 95.0%. Perforation occurred in 37 out of 499 patients (7.4%). Thirty-four patients could be successfully treated conservatively. The type (laterally spreading tumor) and the location (right-sided colon) of the tumors, less experience of the procedure (<100 cases) in each endoscopist, and submucosal injection without hyaluronic acid were associated with higher frequency of perforation (all P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, laterally spreading type of tumor [odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-14.34] and submucosal injection with hyaluronic acid (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.72) were independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Perforation rate was 7.4%, and most cases could be successfully managed nonsurgically. In case of laterally spreading type of tumor, more caution is needed during submucosal dissection and long-lasting submucosal cushion is important for preventing perforation.
BACKGROUND: The possible risk of colonic perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumors is a barrier to wide application. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the risk and the predictive factors for perforation during ESD procedure. METHODS: Between October 2006 and November 2010, a total of 499 consecutive patients (mean age 60.0 ± 11.3 years) who underwent ESD for large-sized (≥ 20 mm), nonpedunculated colorectal tumor were analyzed. First, incidence rate and clinical course of perforation were evaluated. Second, patient-related variables (age, sex, history of aspirin or antiplatelet agents, and comorbidity), endoscopic variables (tumor size, location, and type), procedure-related variables (experience of procedures, procedure time, and materials of submucosal injection), and pathologic diagnosis were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean size of the lesions was 28.9 mm. The overall en bloc resection rate was 95.0%. Perforation occurred in 37 out of 499 patients (7.4%). Thirty-four patients could be successfully treated conservatively. The type (laterally spreading tumor) and the location (right-sided colon) of the tumors, less experience of the procedure (<100 cases) in each endoscopist, and submucosal injection without hyaluronic acid were associated with higher frequency of perforation (all P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, laterally spreading type of tumor [odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-14.34] and submucosal injection with hyaluronic acid (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.72) were independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Perforation rate was 7.4%, and most cases could be successfully managed nonsurgically. In case of laterally spreading type of tumor, more caution is needed during submucosal dissection and long-lasting submucosal cushion is important for preventing perforation.
Authors: M Fujishiro; N Yahagi; N Kakushima; S Kodashima; Y Muraki; S Ono; K Kobayashi; T Hashimoto; N Yamamichi; A Tateishi; Y Shimizu; M Oka; K Ogura; T Kawabe; M Ichinose; M Omata Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: M Fujishiro; N Yahagi; M Nakamura; N Kakushima; S Kodashima; S Ono; K Kobayashi; T Hashimoto; N Yamamichi; A Tateishi; Y Shimizu; M Oka; K Ogura; T Kawabe; M Ichinose; M Omata Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: S Tanaka; K Haruma; S Oka; R Takahashi; M Kunihiro; Y Kitadai; M Yoshihara; F Shimamoto; K Chayama Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: H Kita; H Yamamoto; T Miyata; K Sunada; M Iwamoto; T Yano; M Yoshizawa; K Hanatsuka; M Arashiro; T Omata; K Sugano Journal: Inflammopharmacology Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: H Isomoto; H Nishiyama; N Yamaguchi; E Fukuda; H Ishii; K Ikeda; K Ohnita; K Nakao; S Kohno; S Shikuwa Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Passera; Marco Migliore; Roberto Cirocchi; Giuseppe Galloro; Raffaele Manta; Mario Morino Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.623