AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has several advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, including a higher en bloc resection rate and more accurate pathological estimation. However, ESD is a complex procedure that requires advanced endoscopic skills. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR-L) compared to ESD for rectal carcinoid tumors. METHODS: Between September 2003 and April 2011, 24 rectal carcinoid tumors in 24 patients treated by ESD or EMR-L were retrospectively analyzed. The indications for endoscopic treatment were node-negative rectal carcinoid tumors. We compared the therapeutic outcomes of the ESD group (n = 13) and the EMR-L group (n = 11). RESULTS: Both groups had similar mean tumor sizes (ESD: 5.5 ± 2.1 mm; EMR-L: 4.4 ± 2.2 mm). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were, respectively, 100% and 92.3% for ESD, and 100% and 100% for EMR-L. Perforations did not occur in either group. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one EMR-L case, and it was endoscopically managed. However, there were no differences in therapeutic outcomes between the two groups. The mean procedure time was longer in the ESD group (28.8 ± 16.2 min) than in the EMR-L group (17.4 ± 4.4 min), without a significant difference. The mean hospitalization period was significantly shorter in the EMR-L group (1.8 ± 3.1 day) than in the ESD group (6.2 ± 2.1 day), and eight EMR-L cases were treated in an outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: EMR-L is a simple and effective procedure that compares favorably to ESD for small rectal carcinoid tumors.
AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has several advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, including a higher en bloc resection rate and more accurate pathological estimation. However, ESD is a complex procedure that requires advanced endoscopic skills. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR-L) compared to ESD for rectal carcinoid tumors. METHODS: Between September 2003 and April 2011, 24 rectal carcinoid tumors in 24 patients treated by ESD or EMR-L were retrospectively analyzed. The indications for endoscopic treatment were node-negative rectal carcinoid tumors. We compared the therapeutic outcomes of the ESD group (n = 13) and the EMR-L group (n = 11). RESULTS: Both groups had similar mean tumor sizes (ESD: 5.5 ± 2.1 mm; EMR-L: 4.4 ± 2.2 mm). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were, respectively, 100% and 92.3% for ESD, and 100% and 100% for EMR-L. Perforations did not occur in either group. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one EMR-L case, and it was endoscopically managed. However, there were no differences in therapeutic outcomes between the two groups. The mean procedure time was longer in the ESD group (28.8 ± 16.2 min) than in the EMR-L group (17.4 ± 4.4 min), without a significant difference. The mean hospitalization period was significantly shorter in the EMR-L group (1.8 ± 3.1 day) than in the ESD group (6.2 ± 2.1 day), and eight EMR-L cases were treated in an outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: EMR-L is a simple and effective procedure that compares favorably to ESD for small rectal carcinoid tumors.