Mori Hirohito, Kobara Hideki, Nishiyama Noriko, Fujihara Shintaro, Matsunaga Tae, Ayaki Maki, Chiyo Taiga, Masaki Tsutomu
Department of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Kita-gun, Miki-cho, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan,
Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2818-24. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3983-y. Epub 2014 Dec 6.
Comparative studies on wound surface treatments after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps have not been reported. We conducted a prospective trial of postoperative hemorrhage prevention measures after EMR of such polyps.
Of 138 patients (397 polyps) who had undergone EMR, 62 patients (148 polyps) with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps were enrolled. Using the sealed envelope method, the subjects were randomly assigned to either a snare cauterization (75 polyps) or clip closure group (73 polyps). The primary assessment item was the wound surface treatment time (from immediately after polyp resection to wound surface treatment completion). The secondary assessment items were the incidence of delayed bleeding, perforation incidence 1-7 days after EMR, and difference in medical costs between the groups (University Hospital Medical Information Network: No. 000013473).
The time required for wound surface treatment completion was 3.26 ± 1.57 min in the snare cauterization group and 12.7 ± 2.92 min in the clip closure group, thus demonstrating a significant difference (P = 0.0001). Delayed bleeding was observed in two patients in the clip group, but was not observed in the snare cauterization group (P = 0.098). The clip group required the use of 720 clips that cost \523,410, US $5,163.50, or
After EMR of with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps, snare cauterization was superior to clip closure in terms of procedure time, and medical costs, and not inferior to clip closure in terms of the preventing effect of delayed bleeding.
关于10至20毫米结直肠息肉内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)后创面处理的比较研究尚未见报道。我们针对此类息肉EMR术后预防出血措施进行了一项前瞻性试验。
在138例行EMR的患者(397枚息肉)中,纳入62例患有10至20毫米结直肠息肉的患者(148枚息肉)。采用密封信封法,将受试者随机分为圈套器烧灼组(75枚息肉)或钛夹封闭组(73枚息肉)。主要评估项目为创面处理时间(从息肉切除后即刻至创面处理完成)。次要评估项目为延迟出血发生率、EMR术后1至7天的穿孔发生率以及两组之间的医疗费用差异(大学医院医学信息网络:编号000013473)。
圈套器烧灼组完成创面处理所需时间为3.26±1.57分钟,钛夹封闭组为12.7±2.92分钟,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.0001)。钛夹组有2例患者发生延迟出血,而圈套器烧灼组未观察到延迟出血(P = 0.098)。钛夹组使用了720枚钛夹,花费523,410日元,5,163.50美元或3,665.5欧元。
对于10至20毫米结直肠息肉的EMR,圈套器烧灼在操作时间和医疗费用方面优于钛夹封闭,且在预防延迟出血效果方面不劣于钛夹封闭。