预牵辅助下内镜粘膜下剥离治疗直肠神经内分泌肿瘤的疗效和安全性。

IF 1.8 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Xiao-Xiong Guo, Si-Han Zhang, Ai-Jin Chen, Yan-Ling Chen, Feng-Lin Chen
{"title":"预牵辅助下内镜粘膜下剥离治疗直肠神经内分泌肿瘤的疗效和安全性。","authors":"Xiao-Xiong Guo, Si-Han Zhang, Ai-Jin Chen, Yan-Ling Chen, Feng-Lin Chen","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v17.i9.111734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (c-ESD) is a widely used technique for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but it poses certain challenges. To address these, we developed a pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (p-ESD) technique.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of p-ESD and c-ESD for rectal NETs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs measuring less than 15 mm who underwent either pESD or cESD at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2019 and December 2023. The study aimed to evaluate differences in dissection time, <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse event rates between the pESD and cESD groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 103 patients were enrolled (49 in the p-ESD group and 54 in the c-ESD group). The p-ESD group exhibited a significantly shorter median dissection time (9.3 minutes <i>vs</i> 14.9 minutes; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and a higher R0 resection rate (100% <i>vs</i> 88.9%; <i>P</i> = 0.028), while <i>en bloc</i> resection rates were comparable. Rates of minor intraoperative bleeding (10.2% <i>vs</i> 25.9%; <i>P</i> = 0.040) and major intraoperative bleeding (4.1% <i>vs</i> 18.5%; <i>P</i> = 0.030) were lower in the p-ESD group. No muscularis propria injuries occurred in the p-ESD group <i>vs</i> 16.7% in the c-ESD group (<i>P</i> = 0.003). Other adverse events did not differ significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>p-ESD is safe and effective for treating rectal NETs. Compared with c-ESD, it is technically easier, requires less dissection time, achieves higher R0 resection rates, reduces intraoperative bleeding, and lowers the risk of muscularis propria injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"17 9","pages":"111734"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444259/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao-Xiong Guo, Si-Han Zhang, Ai-Jin Chen, Yan-Ling Chen, Feng-Lin Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.4253/wjge.v17.i9.111734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (c-ESD) is a widely used technique for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but it poses certain challenges. To address these, we developed a pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (p-ESD) technique.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of p-ESD and c-ESD for rectal NETs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs measuring less than 15 mm who underwent either pESD or cESD at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2019 and December 2023. The study aimed to evaluate differences in dissection time, <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse event rates between the pESD and cESD groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 103 patients were enrolled (49 in the p-ESD group and 54 in the c-ESD group). The p-ESD group exhibited a significantly shorter median dissection time (9.3 minutes <i>vs</i> 14.9 minutes; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and a higher R0 resection rate (100% <i>vs</i> 88.9%; <i>P</i> = 0.028), while <i>en bloc</i> resection rates were comparable. Rates of minor intraoperative bleeding (10.2% <i>vs</i> 25.9%; <i>P</i> = 0.040) and major intraoperative bleeding (4.1% <i>vs</i> 18.5%; <i>P</i> = 0.030) were lower in the p-ESD group. No muscularis propria injuries occurred in the p-ESD group <i>vs</i> 16.7% in the c-ESD group (<i>P</i> = 0.003). Other adverse events did not differ significantly.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>p-ESD is safe and effective for treating rectal NETs. Compared with c-ESD, it is technically easier, requires less dissection time, achieves higher R0 resection rates, reduces intraoperative bleeding, and lowers the risk of muscularis propria injury.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"17 9\",\"pages\":\"111734\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444259/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i9.111734\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v17.i9.111734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:常规内镜下粘膜下剥离(c-ESD)是直肠神经内分泌肿瘤(NETs)广泛应用的技术,但存在一定的挑战。为了解决这些问题,我们开发了一种预牵拉辅助内镜粘膜下剥离(p-ESD)技术。目的:比较p-ESD与c-ESD治疗直肠NETs的疗效和安全性。方法:本回顾性研究包括2019年1月至2023年12月在福建医科大学协和医院接受psd或cESD治疗的直肠NETs小于15 mm的连续患者。本研究旨在评估pESD组和cESD组在解剖时间、整体切除率、R0切除率和不良事件发生率方面的差异。结果:共纳入103例患者(p-ESD组49例,c-ESD组54例)。P - esd组中位剥离时间明显缩短(9.3分钟vs 14.9分钟,P < 0.001), R0切除率更高(100% vs 88.9%, P = 0.028),整体切除率相当。P - esd组术中小出血发生率(10.2% vs 25.9%, P = 0.040)和大出血发生率(4.1% vs 18.5%, P = 0.030)较P - esd组低。P - esd组未发生固有肌层损伤,而c-ESD组为16.7% (P = 0.003)。其他不良事件无显著差异。结论:p-ESD治疗直肠NETs安全有效。与c-ESD相比,技术上更简单,清扫时间更短,R0切除率更高,术中出血减少,降低固有肌层损伤的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy and safety of pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

Efficacy and safety of pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

Background: Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (c-ESD) is a widely used technique for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but it poses certain challenges. To address these, we developed a pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (p-ESD) technique.

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of p-ESD and c-ESD for rectal NETs.

Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs measuring less than 15 mm who underwent either pESD or cESD at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2019 and December 2023. The study aimed to evaluate differences in dissection time, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse event rates between the pESD and cESD groups.

Results: In total, 103 patients were enrolled (49 in the p-ESD group and 54 in the c-ESD group). The p-ESD group exhibited a significantly shorter median dissection time (9.3 minutes vs 14.9 minutes; P < 0.001) and a higher R0 resection rate (100% vs 88.9%; P = 0.028), while en bloc resection rates were comparable. Rates of minor intraoperative bleeding (10.2% vs 25.9%; P = 0.040) and major intraoperative bleeding (4.1% vs 18.5%; P = 0.030) were lower in the p-ESD group. No muscularis propria injuries occurred in the p-ESD group vs 16.7% in the c-ESD group (P = 0.003). Other adverse events did not differ significantly.

Conclusion: p-ESD is safe and effective for treating rectal NETs. Compared with c-ESD, it is technically easier, requires less dissection time, achieves higher R0 resection rates, reduces intraoperative bleeding, and lowers the risk of muscularis propria injury.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信