T Suzuki1, Y Kitagawa1, R Nankinzan1, T Hara1, T Yamaguchi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal recurrent lesions after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) often contain severe fibrosis. In such lesions, repeat EMR is often difficult and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) has a high risk of repeated recurrence, while surgery is considered overtreatment. Whether ESD can be used safely and reliably to treat such difficult lesions has not been adequately verified. We analyzed the treatment outcomes of ESD for recurrent lesions after EMR.
METHODS: Among 653 colorectal ESD conducted in our institution between April 2012 and August 2017, 27 consecutive patients underwent the procedure for recurrent lesions after EMR. Treatment outcomes including en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate; complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Treatment outcomes of the 27 patients were as follows: en bloc resection rate 81.5%, R0 resection rate 74.1%, curative resection rate 74.1%, median procedure time 47 min (range 10‒210 min), perforation rate 0%, and delayed bleeding rate 3.7%. The corresponding rates for 626 patients who underwent colorectal ESD during the same period for lesions other than recurrence after EMR were 97.2%, 95.5%, 88.7%, 37 min (7-225 min), 0.5%, and 2.8%. There were no differences in complication rates. Treatment outcomes including en bloc resection rate were inferior in the recurrence group compared to non-recurrent group, but no local recurrence was found in all patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal ESD is feasible for recurrent colorectal lesions after EMR. The procedure is safe and achieves good treatment outcomes with no local recurrence. © Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica.
BACKGROUND: Colorectal recurrent lesions after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) often contain severe fibrosis. In such lesions, repeat EMR is often difficult and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) has a high risk of repeated recurrence, while surgery is considered overtreatment. Whether ESD can be used safely and reliably to treat such difficult lesions has not been adequately verified. We analyzed the treatment outcomes of ESD for recurrent lesions after EMR.
METHODS: Among 653 colorectal ESD conducted in our institution between April 2012 and August 2017, 27 consecutive patients underwent the procedure for recurrent lesions after EMR. Treatment outcomes including en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate; complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Treatment outcomes of the 27 patients were as follows: en bloc resection rate 81.5%, R0 resection rate 74.1%, curative resection rate 74.1%, median procedure time 47 min (range 10‒210 min), perforation rate 0%, and delayed bleeding rate 3.7%. The corresponding rates for 626 patients who underwent colorectal ESD during the same period for lesions other than recurrence after EMR were 97.2%, 95.5%, 88.7%, 37 min (7-225 min), 0.5%, and 2.8%. There were no differences in complication rates. Treatment outcomes including en bloc resection rate were inferior in the recurrence group compared to non-recurrent group, but no local recurrence was found in all patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal ESD is feasible for recurrent colorectal lesions after EMR. The procedure is safe and achieves good treatment outcomes with no local recurrence. © Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica.
Entities:
Keywords:
ESD; colorectal; recurrent; residual; salvage
Mesh：
Year: 2019
PMID： 31566324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Gastroenterol Belg ISSN： 1784-3227 Impact factor: 1.316