Tomita Yuri, Yoshida Naohisa, Inoue Ken, Hashimoto Hikaru, Sugino Satoshi, Yasuda Ritsu, Hirose Ryohei, Dohi Osamu, Naito Yuji, Murakami Takaaki, Inada Yutaka, Morinaga Yukiko, Kishimoto Mitsuo, Itoh Yoshito
Department of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Department of Gastroenterology, Aiseikai Yamashina Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2022 Apr;41(2):149-159. doi: 10.1007/s12664-021-01222-3. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
Technical issues and long procedure time still remain a concern in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (S-O clip; SO) using a scissor-type knife (Clutch Cutter 3.5 mm; CC) for decreasing ESD procedure time.
We retrospectively analyzed 95 ESD cases of PCM + SO + CC managed from August 2017 to April 2020 and 103 cases of PCM + CC treated from July 2016 to July 2017. We compared these two groups through propensity score matching. The main outcome was the analysis of the ESD procedure times under various conditions in each group.
After matching, 52 cases in the PCM + SO + CC and PCM + CC groups were analyzed. The PCM + SO + CC group showed a significantly shorter ESD procedure time than the PCM + CC group (57.8 ± 31.4 vs. 81.7 ± 33.5 min, p < 0.01). Additionally, the ESD procedure time was significantly shorter in the PCM + SO + CC group than in the PCM + CC group: tumor size (tumor size < 40 mm: 45.6 ± 15.8 vs. 72.7 ± 22.9 min, p < 0.01; tumor size ≥ 40 mm: 83.1 ± 40.1 vs. 111.8 ± 45.3 min, p = 0.04), tumor location (right side: 64.7 ± 33.3 vs. 81.0 ± 29.7 min, p = 0.03; left side: 50.5 ± 28.0 vs. 82.3 ± 36.9 min, p < 0.01), tumor morphology (polypoid: 39.2 ± 18.6 vs. 74.7 ± 28.6 min, p < 0.01; nonpolypoid: 62.3 ± 32.3 vs. 84.5 ± 35.2 min, p < 0.01), endoscopist (expert: 67.3 ± 41.2 vs. 91.9 ± 40.2 min, p = 0.02; nonexpert: 50.4 ± 18.3 vs. 73.6 ± 24.9 min, p < 0.01), and fibrosis (severe fibrosis: 82.0 ± 20.5 vs. 99.8 ± 40.4 min, p = 0.169; non-severe fibrosis: 52.1 ± 23.8 vs. 75.6 ± 29.0 min, p < 0.01).
The combination of the PCM and SO using CC achieved a reduction in the colorectal ESD procedure time.
技术问题和较长的手术时间仍是结直肠内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)中令人担忧的问题。我们研究了使用剪刀型刀(3.5毫米离合器切割刀;CC)将造袋法(PCM)与牵引装置(S - O夹;SO)相结合对缩短ESD手术时间的有效性。
我们回顾性分析了2017年8月至2020年4月采用PCM + SO + CC治疗的95例ESD病例以及2016年7月至2017年7月采用PCM + CC治疗的103例病例。我们通过倾向得分匹配对这两组进行了比较。主要结果是分析每组在各种条件下的ESD手术时间。
匹配后,对PCM + SO + CC组和PCM + CC组的52例病例进行了分析。PCM + SO + CC组的ESD手术时间明显短于PCM + CC组(57.8±31.4分钟对81.7±33.5分钟,p < 0.01)。此外,PCM + SO + CC组的ESD手术时间在以下方面也明显短于PCM + CC组:肿瘤大小(肿瘤大小<40毫米:45.6±15.8分钟对72.7±22.9分钟,p < 0.01;肿瘤大小≥40毫米:83.1±40.1分钟对111.8±45.3分钟,p = 0.04)、肿瘤位置(右侧:64.7±33.3分钟对81.0±29.7分钟,p = 0.03;左侧:50.5±28.0分钟对82.3±36.9分钟,p < 0.01)、肿瘤形态(息肉样:39.2±18.6分钟对74.7±28.6分钟,p < 0.01;非息肉样:62.3±32.3分钟对84.5±35.2分钟,p < 0.01)、内镜医师(专家:67.3±41.2分钟对91.9±40.2分钟,p = 0.02;非专家:50.4±18.3分钟对73.6±24.9分钟,p < 0.01)以及纤维化情况(严重纤维化:82.0±20.5分钟对99.8±40.4分钟,p = 0.169;非严重纤维化:52.1±23.8分钟对75.6±29.0分钟,p < 0.01)。
使用CC将PCM和SO相结合可缩短结直肠ESD手术时间。