Endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in small bowel subepithelial lesions: experience in treating fifteen cases

Bai-Rong Li, Zi-Han Huang, Teng Li, Xiao-Meng Feng, Xiao Chen, Tao Sun, Hong-Yu Chen, Xin Yin, Shou-Bin Ning
{"title":"Endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in small bowel subepithelial lesions: experience in treating fifteen cases","authors":"Bai-Rong Li, Zi-Han Huang, Teng Li, Xiao-Meng Feng, Xiao Chen, Tao Sun, Hong-Yu Chen, Xin Yin, Shou-Bin Ning","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-11195-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Aim</h3><p>The study objective was to evaluate the primary feasibility of endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) to treat small bowel subepithelial lesions (SELs).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Method</h3><p>A retrospective case series study was performed. The first fifteen consecutive patients who underwent ESD (<i>n</i> = 10) and EFTR (<i>n</i> = 5) via BAE to remove small bowel SELs from November 2016 to December 2023 were included. The main outcome measures were the technique success rate, operative time and complication rate.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>This research focused on 15 cases of jejunoileal SELs, four cases of lipomyoma, three cases of ectopic pancreas, two cases of NETs, three cases of benign fibrous tumours and three cases of angioma. The overall technique success rate was 86.7%, with 100% (10/10) and 60% (3/5) for BAE-ESD and BAE-EFTR, respectively, in removing small bowel SELs. Two cases of EFTR failed, as the BAE operation was unsuitable for tumour resection and suture repair of a perforated wound. No serious bleeding or any postoperative complications occurred. The median time of endoscopic resection via BAE for SELs was 44 min (range 22–68 min).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>ESD and EFTR via BAE might be alternative choices for treating small SELs in the small bowel, with the advantages of clear and accurate positioning and minimal invasiveness. However, its superiority over surgery still needs to be further investigated.</p>","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11195-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

The study objective was to evaluate the primary feasibility of endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) to treat small bowel subepithelial lesions (SELs).

Method

A retrospective case series study was performed. The first fifteen consecutive patients who underwent ESD (n = 10) and EFTR (n = 5) via BAE to remove small bowel SELs from November 2016 to December 2023 were included. The main outcome measures were the technique success rate, operative time and complication rate.

Results

This research focused on 15 cases of jejunoileal SELs, four cases of lipomyoma, three cases of ectopic pancreas, two cases of NETs, three cases of benign fibrous tumours and three cases of angioma. The overall technique success rate was 86.7%, with 100% (10/10) and 60% (3/5) for BAE-ESD and BAE-EFTR, respectively, in removing small bowel SELs. Two cases of EFTR failed, as the BAE operation was unsuitable for tumour resection and suture repair of a perforated wound. No serious bleeding or any postoperative complications occurred. The median time of endoscopic resection via BAE for SELs was 44 min (range 22–68 min).

Conclusion

ESD and EFTR via BAE might be alternative choices for treating small SELs in the small bowel, with the advantages of clear and accurate positioning and minimal invasiveness. However, its superiority over surgery still needs to be further investigated.

Abstract Image

通过球囊辅助肠镜(BAE)对小肠上皮下病变进行内镜下粘膜下切除术(ESD)和内镜下全层切除术(EFTR):15 例病例的治疗经验
研究目的是评估通过球囊辅助肠镜(BAE)进行内镜粘膜下切除术(ESD)和内镜全层切除术(EFTR)治疗小肠上皮下病变(SELs)的初步可行性。方法进行了一项回顾性病例系列研究。研究纳入了2016年11月至2023年12月期间通过BAE进行ESD(10例)和EFTR(5例)切除小肠上皮下病变的前15例连续患者。主要结果指标为技术成功率、手术时间和并发症发生率。结果这项研究主要针对15例空肠SEL、4例脂肪瘤、3例异位胰腺、2例NET、3例良性纤维瘤和3例血管瘤。在切除小肠 SEL 方面,BAE-ESD 和 BAE-EFTR 的总体技术成功率为 86.7%,分别为 100%(10/10)和 60%(3/5)。有两例EFTR手术失败,原因是BAE手术不适合切除肿瘤和缝合修复穿孔伤口。没有发生严重出血或任何术后并发症。通过 BAE 进行内镜切除 SEL 的中位时间为 44 分钟(22-68 分钟不等)。然而,与手术相比,其优越性仍有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信