牵引与造袋方法在结肠内镜下粘膜下剥离中的比较。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Abdulrahman Qatomah, Daryl Ramai, Hiroyuki Aihara
{"title":"牵引与造袋方法在结肠内镜下粘膜下剥离中的比较。","authors":"Abdulrahman Qatomah, Daryl Ramai, Hiroyuki Aihara","doi":"10.1007/s10620-025-09444-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers high en bloc and R0 resection rates for large colorectal lesions. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and treatment outcomes of the traction method (TM) versus the pocket creation method (PCM) in colorectal ESD.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Consecutive patients undergoing colorectal ESD at a tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2024 were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events (AE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 668 patients, 50.7% of whom were females with a mean age of 63 years (SD 12). The mean diameter of the lesions was 50.4 mm (SD 23). A total of 94.8% (n = 663) of lesions were removed via en bloc resection, achieving R0 resection rate of 89.1%, and curative resection rate at 87.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that TM was linked to fourfolds increase in en bloc resection rates (OR 4.187, P = 0.001) and significantly higher R0 resection rates (OR 39.874, P < 0.001) compared to PCM. Left-sided colon lesions also had higher en bloc rates (OR 2.747, P = 0.018). TM was associated with significantly shorter dissection time than PCM (50.6 min vs 72.0 min; P < 0.001). Muscle injury was significantly more common in PCM (P = 0.012), while no differences other AE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TM appears to have a higher chance of complete resection, offering shorter dissection times, while both methods have similar risks of major adverse event rates. Both techniques are good options with comparable safety profiles for colorectal ESD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Traction and Pocket Creation Methods for Facilitating Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Abdulrahman Qatomah, Daryl Ramai, Hiroyuki Aihara\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10620-025-09444-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers high en bloc and R0 resection rates for large colorectal lesions. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and treatment outcomes of the traction method (TM) versus the pocket creation method (PCM) in colorectal ESD.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Consecutive patients undergoing colorectal ESD at a tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2024 were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events (AE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 668 patients, 50.7% of whom were females with a mean age of 63 years (SD 12). The mean diameter of the lesions was 50.4 mm (SD 23). A total of 94.8% (n = 663) of lesions were removed via en bloc resection, achieving R0 resection rate of 89.1%, and curative resection rate at 87.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that TM was linked to fourfolds increase in en bloc resection rates (OR 4.187, P = 0.001) and significantly higher R0 resection rates (OR 39.874, P < 0.001) compared to PCM. Left-sided colon lesions also had higher en bloc rates (OR 2.747, P = 0.018). TM was associated with significantly shorter dissection time than PCM (50.6 min vs 72.0 min; P < 0.001). Muscle injury was significantly more common in PCM (P = 0.012), while no differences other AE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TM appears to have a higher chance of complete resection, offering shorter dissection times, while both methods have similar risks of major adverse event rates. Both techniques are good options with comparable safety profiles for colorectal ESD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09444-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09444-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的:内镜下粘膜下剥离术(ESD)对大肠癌病变具有很高的整体和R0切除率。本研究旨在比较牵引法(TM)与造袋法(PCM)在结肠直肠ESD中的疗效、安全性和治疗效果。方法:选取2014 ~ 2024年在某三级转诊中心连续行结肠ESD手术的患者。结果包括整体切除、R0切除、治愈性切除和不良事件(AE)。结果:纳入668例患者,50.7%为女性,平均年龄63岁(SD 12)。病灶平均直径50.4 mm (SD 23)。全组切除94.8% (n = 663)病灶,R0切除率为89.1%,治愈率为87.9%。多变量分析显示,TM与整体切除率增加4倍(OR 4.187, P = 0.001)和显著提高R0切除率(OR 39.874, P)相关。结论:TM似乎具有更高的完全切除机会,提供更短的解剖时间,而两种方法的主要不良事件发生率风险相似。这两种技术都是很好的选择,具有相当的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Traction and Pocket Creation Methods for Facilitating Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Background and aim: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers high en bloc and R0 resection rates for large colorectal lesions. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and treatment outcomes of the traction method (TM) versus the pocket creation method (PCM) in colorectal ESD.

Method: Consecutive patients undergoing colorectal ESD at a tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2024 were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events (AE).

Results: The study included 668 patients, 50.7% of whom were females with a mean age of 63 years (SD 12). The mean diameter of the lesions was 50.4 mm (SD 23). A total of 94.8% (n = 663) of lesions were removed via en bloc resection, achieving R0 resection rate of 89.1%, and curative resection rate at 87.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that TM was linked to fourfolds increase in en bloc resection rates (OR 4.187, P = 0.001) and significantly higher R0 resection rates (OR 39.874, P < 0.001) compared to PCM. Left-sided colon lesions also had higher en bloc rates (OR 2.747, P = 0.018). TM was associated with significantly shorter dissection time than PCM (50.6 min vs 72.0 min; P < 0.001). Muscle injury was significantly more common in PCM (P = 0.012), while no differences other AE.

Conclusion: TM appears to have a higher chance of complete resection, offering shorter dissection times, while both methods have similar risks of major adverse event rates. Both techniques are good options with comparable safety profiles for colorectal ESD.

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
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
420
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.
×
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