| Literature DB >> 29686470 |
Toshio Kuwai1, Toshiki Yamaguchi2, Hiroki Imagawa2, Ryoichi Miura2, Yuki Sumida2, Takeshi Takasago2, Yuki Miyasako2, Tomoyuki Nishimura2, Sumio Iio2, Atsushi Yamaguchi2, Hirotaka Kouno2, Hiroshi Kohno2, Sauid Ishaq3.
Abstract
AIM: To determine short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using the stag beetle (SB) knife, a scissor-shaped device.Entities:
Keywords: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Esophageal; Neoplasms; Outcome measures; Stag beetle knife
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29686470 PMCID: PMC5910546 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i15.1632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1Study design, evaluating the use of the stag beetle knife for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection. ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; HGIN: High-grade intraepithelial neoplasia; SCC: Squamous cell carcinoma.
Figure 2Features of the stag beetle Knife Jr and short devices.
Figure 3Stag beetle knife used for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in a 79-year-old man. Endoscopic appearance of a 35-mm, depressed lesion in the middle one-third of the esophagus (A) under white light (B) on a scatter image with Lugol’s iodine applied (C) with argon plasma coagulation markings; D and E: Use of the SB Knife Jr for full-circumferential incision; use of the SB Knife Short for (F) submucosal dissection and (G) hemostasis; H: En bloc resection of the lesion; I: Ulcer floor after resection.
Figure 4Formalin-fixed specimen sliced at 2-mm intervals for routine processing and slide preparation (A); Evaluation of the histotype, invasion depth, and vertical/lateral resection margins (B-D).
Study demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics n (%)
| Number of patients | 70 |
| Number of lesions | 96 |
| Age, mean ± SD (range), yr | 67 ± 10 (43-87) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 59 (84) |
| Female | 11 (16) |
| Location of the tumor in the esophagus | |
| Upper one-third | 11 (11) |
| Middle one-third | 53 (55) |
| Lower one-third | 33 (34) |
| Gross appearance | |
| Depressed | 86 (90) |
| Elevated | 7 (7) |
| Flat | 2 (2) |
| Mixed | 1 (1) |
| Resected specimen size, mean ± SD (range), mm | 33 ± 14 (9-75) |
| Resected tumor size, mean ± SD (range), mm | 24 ± 13 (1-64) |
| Luminal extent | |
| < 1/2 | 59 (61) |
| ≥ 1/2, < 2/3 | 20 (21) |
| ≥ 2/3 | 17 (18) |
| Histopathologic features | |
| Dysplasia/intraepithelial neoplasia | 21 (22) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 75 (78) |
| Epithelial lining | 15 (20) |
| Lamina propria mucosae | 31 (41) |
| Muscularis mucosae | 13 (17) |
| Submucosa (SM1) | 2 (3) |
| Submucosa (SM2 or deeper) | 14 (19) |
Short-term outcomes and adverse events of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection, n %
| Procedure duration, median (range) | 60 (25-305) |
| 96 (100) [96.2-100] | |
| Complete resection with negative margins | 91 (95) [88.4-97.8] |
| Curative resection | 78 (81) [72.3-87.8] |
| Adverse events | |
| Perforation | 0 (0) [0-3.9] |
| Delayed bleeding | 0 (0) [0-3.9] |
| Pneumonia | 3 (3) [1.1-8.8] |
| Esophageal stricture | 7 (7) [3.6-14.3] |
Figure 5Long-term outcomes and survival analysis. A: Cumulative metachronous cancer rates in patients with curative resection; B: Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival rates in all patients; C: Patients grouped according to curative and non-curative resection.