AIM: To compare the short term outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with that of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LC) for the treatment of early colorectal epithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of all consecutive patients who underwent ESD for endoscopically assessed benign lesions that were larger than 2 cm in diameter from 2009 to 2013 were collected. These patients were compared with a cohort of controls who underwent LC from 2005 to 2013. Lesions that were proven to be malignant by initial endoscopic biopsies were excluded. Mid and lower rectal lesions were not included because total mesorectal excision, which bears a more complicated postoperative course, is not indicated for lesions without histological proof of malignancy. Both ESD and LC were performed by the same surgical unit with a standardized technique. The patients were managed according to a standard protocol, and they were closely monitored for complications after the procedures. All hospital records were reviewed, and the following data were compared between the ESD and LC groups: patient demographics, size and location of the lesions, procedure time, short-term clinical outcomes and pathology results. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2013, 65 patients who underwent ESD and 55 patients who underwent LC were included in this study. The two groups were similar in terms of sex (P = 0.41) and American Society of Anesthesiologist class (P = 0.58), although patients in the ESD group were slightly older (68.6 ± 9.4 vs 64.6 ± 9.9, P = 0.03). ESD could be accomplished with a shorter procedure time (113 ± 66 min vs 153 ± 43 min, P < 0.01) for lesions of comparable size (3.0 ± 1.2 cm vs 3.4 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.22) and location (colon/rectum: 59/6 vs colon/rectum: 52/3, P = 0.43). ESD appeared to be associated with a lower short-term complication rate, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (10.8% vs 23.6%, P = 0.06). In the LC arm, a total of 22 complications occurred in 13 patients. A total of 7 complications occurred in the ESD arm, including 5 perforations and 2 episodes of bleeding. All perforations were observed during the procedure and were successfully managed by endoscopic clipping without emergency surgical intervention. Patients in the ESD arm had a faster recovery than patients in the LC arm, which included shorter time to resume normal diet (2 d vs 4 d, P = 0.01) and a shorter hospital stay (3 d vs 6 d, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ESD showed better short-term clinical outcomes in this study. Further prospective randomized studies will be required to evaluate the efficacy and superiority of colorectal ESD over LC.
AIM: To compare the short term outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with that of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LC) for the treatment of early colorectal epithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic removal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of all consecutive patients who underwent ESD for endoscopically assessed benign lesions that were larger than 2 cm in diameter from 2009 to 2013 were collected. These patients were compared with a cohort of controls who underwent LC from 2005 to 2013. Lesions that were proven to be malignant by initial endoscopic biopsies were excluded. Mid and lower rectal lesions were not included because total mesorectal excision, which bears a more complicated postoperative course, is not indicated for lesions without histological proof of malignancy. Both ESD and LC were performed by the same surgical unit with a standardized technique. The patients were managed according to a standard protocol, and they were closely monitored for complications after the procedures. All hospital records were reviewed, and the following data were compared between the ESD and LC groups: patient demographics, size and location of the lesions, procedure time, short-term clinical outcomes and pathology results. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2013, 65 patients who underwent ESD and 55 patients who underwent LC were included in this study. The two groups were similar in terms of sex (P = 0.41) and American Society of Anesthesiologist class (P = 0.58), although patients in the ESD group were slightly older (68.6 ± 9.4 vs 64.6 ± 9.9, P = 0.03). ESD could be accomplished with a shorter procedure time (113 ± 66 min vs 153 ± 43 min, P < 0.01) for lesions of comparable size (3.0 ± 1.2 cm vs 3.4 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.22) and location (colon/rectum: 59/6 vs colon/rectum: 52/3, P = 0.43). ESD appeared to be associated with a lower short-term complication rate, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (10.8% vs 23.6%, P = 0.06). In the LC arm, a total of 22 complications occurred in 13 patients. A total of 7 complications occurred in the ESD arm, including 5 perforations and 2 episodes of bleeding. All perforations were observed during the procedure and were successfully managed by endoscopic clipping without emergency surgical intervention. Patients in the ESD arm had a faster recovery than patients in the LC arm, which included shorter time to resume normal diet (2 d vs 4 d, P = 0.01) and a shorter hospital stay (3 d vs 6 d, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ESD showed better short-term clinical outcomes in this study. Further prospective randomized studies will be required to evaluate the efficacy and superiority of colorectal ESD over LC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early colorectal neoplasia; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Laparoscopic colectomy
Authors: Joon Ho Jang; Emre Balik; Daniel Kirchoff; Wouter Tromp; Anjali Kumar; Michael Grieco; Daniel L Feingold; Vesna Cekic; Linda Njoh; Richard L Whelan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-11-05 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rasmy Loungnarath; Matthew G Mutch; Elisa H Birnbaum; Thomas E Read; James W Fleshman Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: K Niimi; M Fujishiro; S Kodashima; O Goto; S Ono; K Hirano; C Minatsuki; N Yamamichi; K Koike Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H Yamamoto; H Kawata; K Sunada; A Sasaki; K Nakazawa; T Miyata; Y Sekine; T Yano; K Satoh; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.093