4.0 Article

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Journal

CLINICS IN COLON AND RECTAL SURGERY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770941

Keywords

colonic polyp; endoscopic mucosal resection; endoscopic submucosal dissection; advanced endoscopic resection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps can be treated with conventional polypectomy, while advanced endoscopic resection techniques provide higher en bloc resection rates, helping patients avoid surgical complications.
Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection ( ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 mu m, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well- moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available