Suppr超能文献

结肠内镜黏膜下剥离术和内镜黏膜切除术复发情况的多中心评估:西方视角

Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective.

作者信息

Wei Mike T, Zhou Margaret J, Li Andrew A, Ofosu Andrew, Hwang Joo Ha, Friedland Shai

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States.

Department of Gastroenterology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH 45267, United States.

出版信息

World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Jun 16;15(6):458-468. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i6.458.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

While colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective technique, removal of larger polyps often requires piecemeal resection, which can increase recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the colon offers the ability for resection and is well-described in Asia, but there are limited studies comparing ESD EMR in the West.

AIM

To evaluate different techniques in endoscopic resection of large polyps in the colon and to identify factors for recurrence.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective comparison of ESD, EMR and knife-assisted endoscopic resection performed at Stanford University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System between 2016 and 2020. Knife-assisted endoscopic resection was defined as use of electrosurgical knife to facilitate snare resection, such as for circumferential incision. Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy with removal of polyp(s) ≥ 20 mm were included. The primary outcome was recurrence on follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients and 428 polyps were included. Mean polyp size was greatest in the ESD group (35.8 mm), followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (33.3 mm) and EMR (30.5 mm) ( < 0.001) ESD achieved highest resection (90.4%) followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (31.1%) and EMR (20.2%) ( < 0.001). A total of 287 polyps had follow-up (67.1%). On follow-up analysis, recurrence rate was lowest in knife-assisted endoscopic resection (0.0%) and ESD (1.3%) and highest in EMR (12.9%) ( = 0.0017). polyp resection had significantly lower rate of recurrence (1.9%) compared to non- (12.0%, = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, ESD (in comparison to EMR) adjusted for polyp size was found to significantly reduce risk of recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio 0.06 (95%CI: 0.01-0.57, = 0.014)].

CONCLUSION

In our study, EMR had significantly higher recurrence compared to ESD and knife-assisted endoscopic resection. We found factors including resection by ESD, removal, and use of circumferential incision were associated with significantly decreased recurrence. While further studies are needed, we have demonstrated the efficacy of ESD in a Western population.

摘要

背景

虽然结肠内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)是一种有效的技术,但切除较大息肉通常需要分片切除,这可能会增加复发率。结肠内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)能够实现整块切除,在亚洲已有详细描述,但在西方比较ESD和EMR的研究有限。

目的

评估结肠大息肉内镜切除的不同技术,并确定复发的相关因素。

方法

本研究是对2016年至2020年在斯坦福大学医学中心和退伍军人事务部帕洛阿尔托医疗保健系统进行的ESD、EMR和刀辅助内镜切除术的回顾性比较。刀辅助内镜切除术定义为使用电外科刀辅助圈套器切除,如进行环周切开。纳入年龄≥18岁、接受结肠镜检查且切除息肉≥20 mm的患者。主要结局是随访时的复发情况。

结果

共纳入376例患者和428枚息肉。息肉平均大小在ESD组最大(35.8 mm),其次是刀辅助内镜切除术(33.3 mm)和EMR(30.5 mm)(P<0.001)。ESD实现整块切除的比例最高(90.4%),其次是刀辅助内镜切除术(31.1%)和EMR(20.2%)(P<0.001)。共有287枚息肉进行了随访(67.1%)。在随访分析中,刀辅助内镜切除术(0.0%)和ESD(1.3%)的复发率最低,EMR(12.9%)的复发率最高(P = 0.0017)。整块息肉切除的复发率(1.9%)显著低于非整块切除(12.0%,P = 0.003)。在多变量分析中,调整息肉大小后,发现ESD(与EMR相比)显著降低复发风险[调整后的风险比为0.06(95%CI:0.01-0.57,P = 0.014)]。

结论

在我们的研究中,与ESD和刀辅助内镜切除术相比,EMR的复发率显著更高。我们发现包括ESD切除、整块切除和使用环周切开等因素与复发率显著降低相关。虽然还需要进一步研究,但我们已经证明了ESD在西方人群中的疗效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4dde/10308275/bc77ef464a4a/WJGE-15-458-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验