Literature DB >> 22678327

Endoscopic mucosal resection of giant laterally spreading tumors with submucosal injection of hydroxyethyl starch: comparative study with normal saline solution.

Kostas Fasoulas1, Georgia Lazaraki, Grigoris Chatzimavroudis, George Paroutoglou, Taxiarchis Katsinelos, Eleni Dimou, Christos Geros, Christos Zavos, Jannis Kountouras, Panagiotis Katsinelos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Normal saline (NS) plus epinephrine (E) is the traditionally used solution as submucosal fluid cushion for a safe and effective endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of sessile colorectal polyps. It was hypothesized that hydroxyethyl starch (HES), an inexpensive and easily available solution might be an ideal solution for prolonged elevation of submucosal cushion for an easy and safe EMR of giant colorectal lateral spreading tumors (LSTs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 6-year period, patients suffering from colorectal LSTs with a diameter of ≥ 30 mm were randomized to undergo EMR by using either HES+E (group A) or NS+E (group B) for submucosal fluid cushion. All patients who had undergone a colonoscopy set the diagnosis of LSTs. The LSTs were examined with standard white light and narrow-band imaging to accurately delinate their margins before resection. The initial volume of injected solution, the additional amount to maintain the submucosal cushion, the duration of submucosal elevation and post-EMR-related complications were recorded. After EMR, patients had a standard follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months and further if it was necessary using total colonoscopy.
RESULTS: Forty-nine patients suffering from giant LSTs were included in the study. No difference between the 2 groups was observed in patients' characteristics, size of LSTs, and the initial volume of injected solution. However, the additional amount of solution to maintain submucosal elevation was lower in group A (median, 4 mL; range, 2 to 25) than in group B (median, 6 mL; range, 3 to 8; P=0.001). Moreover, submucosal elevation had a statistically longer duration in group A (median, 18.5 min; range, 14.5 to 28.4) than in group B (median, 20.15 min, range, 9.6 to 13.4; P<0.001), and there was a statistical difference on total procedure time in favor of group A [group A, 20.15 min (12 to 32.5) vs. group B, 22.8 min (18 to 34.5)]. One case of macroperforation, 2 cases of postpolypectomy syndrome, and 1 case of EMR-related bleeding were observed in the HES+E group, whereas 6 cases of EMR-related bleeding were observed in the NS+E group. During a median follow-up of 32 and 34 months, for HES+E and NS+E groups, respectively, 5 and 7 recurrences were observed, which were all treated endoscopically.
CONCLUSIONS: HES+E injection produces a more prolonged submucosal elevation and lowers total procedure time than NS+E; however, the safety of EMR is not influenced.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22678327     DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e318251553c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech        ISSN: 1530-4515            Impact factor:   1.719


  14 in total

Review 1.  Update on Difficult Polypectomy Techniques.

Authors:  Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Heiko Pohl; Yamile Haito-Chavez; Mouen A Khashab
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-01

2.  Randomized controlled trial investigating use of submucosal injection of EverLift™ in rates of complete resection of non-pedunculated 4-9 mm polyps.

Authors:  Mike T Wei; Christine Y Louie; Yu Chen; Jennifer Y Pan; Susan Y Quan; Robert Wong; Ryanne Brown; Melissa Clark; Kristin Jensen; Hubert Lau; Shai Friedland
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists.

Authors:  Sushrut Sujan Thiruvengadam; Brian M Fung; Monique T Barakat; James H Tabibian
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2022-03

Review 4.  Submucosal injection solution for endoscopic resection in gastrointestinal tract: a traditional and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhang Yu Huai; Wei Feng Xian; Luo Chang Jiang; Wang Xi Chen
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.260

5.  Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Mucosal Incision for Colorectal Neoplasms: Comparison with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and between Two Endoscopists with Different Experiences.

Authors:  Dong-Hoon Yang; Min-Seob Kwak; Sang Hyoung Park; Byong Duk Ye; Jeong-Sik Byeon; Seung-Jae Myung; Suk-Kyun Yang; Hyun Gun Kim; Shai Friedland
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-03-07

6.  Utility and performance characteristics of a novel submucosal injection agent (EleviewTM) for endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Authors:  Mohit Girotra; George Triadafilopoulos; Shai Friedland
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-06-19

Review 7.  Improved Techniques for Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) in Colorectal Adenoma.

Authors:  Moritz Sold; Georg Kähler
Journal:  Viszeralmedizin       Date:  2014-02

8.  Solutions for submucosal injection in endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; Joana Moleiro; Joana Torres; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2015-10-06

9.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection with a novel high viscosity injection solution (LiftUp) in an ex vivo model: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  E Wedi; P Koehler; J Hochberger; J Maiss; S Milenovic; M Gromski; N Ho; C Gabor; U Baulain; V Ellenrieder; C Jung
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-05-02

10.  Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pedro Russo; Sandra Barbeiro; Halim Awadie; Diogo Libânio; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Michael Bourke
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-01-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.