Comparison of the pocket-creation method with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.
Dong Yang, Ke Tao, Qingying He, Nan Zhang, Hong Xu
{"title":"Comparison of the pocket-creation method with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.","authors":"Dong Yang, Ke Tao, Qingying He, Nan Zhang, Hong Xu","doi":"10.1080/00365521.2024.2440788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the pocket-creation method (PCM) with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data of patients who underwent ESD for cecal or ascending colon lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the PCM group and the conventional group according to the method of ESD. Baseline data, endoscopic characteristics, dissection speed, pathological results and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Dissection speed was also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 122 patients were included. The dissection speed in the PCM group was higher than in the conventional group (0.20 [0.11, 0.32] cm<sup>2</sup>/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm<sup>2</sup>/min, Z = -2.813, <i>p</i> = 0.005). The proportion of patients with injury to the muscularis propria layer in the PCM group was lower than in the conventional group, though the difference was not significant (19.4% vs. 29.1%, χ<sup>2</sup> = 1.215, <i>p</i> = 0.270). The univariate analysis showed that low body mass index (BMI), use of the PCM, long lesion diameter, large lesion area, and minimal fibrosis were independent risk factors for fast dissection (all <i>p</i> < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis showed that high dissection speed was associated with the choice to use the PCM, longer lesion diameter, and no fibrosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For cecal and ascending colon lesions, the PCM is a better choice than the conventional method, especially in patients with fibrosis, and large lesion area.</p>","PeriodicalId":21461,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2440788","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the pocket-creation method (PCM) with the conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for cecal and ascending colon lesion resection.
Methods: The data of patients who underwent ESD for cecal or ascending colon lesions were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the PCM group and the conventional group according to the method of ESD. Baseline data, endoscopic characteristics, dissection speed, pathological results and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Dissection speed was also analyzed.
Results: Overall, 122 patients were included. The dissection speed in the PCM group was higher than in the conventional group (0.20 [0.11, 0.32] cm2/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm2/min, Z = -2.813, p = 0.005). The proportion of patients with injury to the muscularis propria layer in the PCM group was lower than in the conventional group, though the difference was not significant (19.4% vs. 29.1%, χ2 = 1.215, p = 0.270). The univariate analysis showed that low body mass index (BMI), use of the PCM, long lesion diameter, large lesion area, and minimal fibrosis were independent risk factors for fast dissection (all p < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis showed that high dissection speed was associated with the choice to use the PCM, longer lesion diameter, and no fibrosis.
Conclusion: For cecal and ascending colon lesions, the PCM is a better choice than the conventional method, especially in patients with fibrosis, and large lesion area.
目的:比较内镜下粘膜下剥离术(ESD)与造袋术(PCM)在盲肠及升结肠病变切除术中的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析盲肠或升结肠病变行ESD的患者资料。按照ESD方法将患者分为PCM组和常规组。比较两组患者的基线资料、内镜特征、剥离速度、病理结果及不良事件。分析了解剖速度。结果:共纳入122例患者。PCM组解剖速度明显高于常规组(0.20 [0.11,0.32]cm2/min vs. 0.12 [0.08, 0.20] cm2/min, Z = -2.813, p = 0.005)。PCM组固有肌层损伤比例低于常规组,但差异无统计学意义(19.4% vs 29.1%, χ2 = 1.215, p = 0.270)。单因素分析显示,体重指数(BMI)低、使用PCM、病变直径长、病变面积大、纤维化小是快速夹层的独立危险因素(均p)。结论:对于盲肠和升结肠病变,PCM是一种较好的选择,特别是对于纤维化、病变面积大的患者。
期刊介绍:
The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology is one of the most important journals for international medical research in gastroenterology and hepatology with international contributors, Editorial Board, and distribution