Watanabe Kenichiro, Ogata Shinichi, Kawazoe Seiji, Watanabe Kazuyo, Koyama Takanori, Kajiwara Tetsuro, Shimoda Yuichiro, Takase Yukari, Irie Kouji, Mizuguchi Masanobu, Tsunada Seiji, Iwakiri Ryuichi, Fujimoto Kazuma
Department of Internal Medicine, Radiology, Pathology, Saga Prefectural Hospital Koseikan, Saga Japan.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 May;63(6):776-82. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.08.049.
EMR is currently a standard treatment for mucosal gastric tumors. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed for en bloc resection.
We evaluated the clinical outcomes of ESD compared with conventional EMR.
Not applicable.
A historical control study was performed between EMR and ESD.
EMR of 245 gastric tumors was performed in 229 patients. Lesions were divided into two groups. Conventional EMR was performed in group A from February 1999 to June 2001, and ESD was performed in group B from July 2001 to March 2004. Group B was divided into subgroups: subgroup B-1 underwent ESD from July 2001 to March 2003 and subgroup B-2 from April 2003 to March 2004.
All lesions were resected with conventional EMR or with ESD.
En bloc resection rate, rate in completeness of resection, required time, remnant ratio, and complications were evaluated.
With regard to lesions >10 mm in size, the en bloc resection rate and the rate in completeness of resection of group B was significantly higher than that of group A (p < 0.01). Although the required time was longer in group B than A (p < 0.01), it was shorter in subgroup B-2 compared with B-1 (p < 0.05) with lesions < or =10 mm in size. The remnant ratio and perforation rate were not different between groups.
Not applicable.
The en bloc resection rate was better with ESD than with conventional EMR. The required time was longer in ESD, but this disadvantage might be improved with experience.
内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)目前是胃黏膜肿瘤的标准治疗方法。内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)已被开发用于整块切除。
我们评估了ESD与传统EMR相比的临床结果。
不适用。
在EMR和ESD之间进行了一项历史对照研究。
229例患者接受了245例胃肿瘤的EMR。病变分为两组。1999年2月至2001年6月,A组进行传统EMR,2001年7月至2004年3月,B组进行ESD。B组分为亚组:B-1亚组在2001年7月至2003年3月接受ESD,B-2亚组在2003年4月至2004年3月接受ESD。
所有病变均采用传统EMR或ESD切除。
评估整块切除率、切除完整性率、所需时间、残留率和并发症。
对于直径>10 mm的病变,B组的整块切除率和切除完整性率显著高于A组(p<0.01)。虽然B组所需时间比A组长(p<0.01),但对于直径≤10 mm的病变,B-2亚组比B-1亚组所需时间短(p<0.05)。两组之间的残留率和穿孔率没有差异。
不适用。
ESD的整块切除率优于传统EMR。ESD所需时间较长,但随着经验的积累,这一缺点可能会得到改善。