4.6 Article

A pilot randomized control study to evaluate endoscopic resection using a ligation device for rectal carcinoid tumors

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 25, Pages 4026-4028

Publisher

W J G PRESS
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i25.4026

Keywords

carcinoid; ligation mucosectomy; endoscopy; rectum; conventional method

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: Rectal carcinoid tumors smaller than 10 mm can be resected with local excision using endoscopy. In order to remove rectal carcinoid tumors completely, we evaluated endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device in this pilot control randomized study. METHODS: Fifteen patients were diagnosed with rectal carcinoid tumor (less than 10 mm) in our hospital from 1993 to 2002. There were 9 males and 6 females, with a mean age 61.5 years (range, 34-77 years). The patientshad no complaints of carcinoid syndrome symptoms. Fifteen patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: 7 carcinoid tumors were treated by conventional endoscopic resection, and 8 carcinoid tumors were treated by endoscopic resection using a ligation device. RESULTS: All rectal carcinoid tumors were located at the middle to distal rectum. The size of the tumors varied from 3 mm to 10 mm and background characteristics of the patients were not different in the two groups. The rate of complete removal of carcinoid tumors using a ligation device (100%, 8/8) was significantly higher than that of conventional endoscopic resection (57.1%, 4/7). The three patients had tumor involvement of deep margin, for which additional treatment was performed. No complications occurred during or after endoscopic resection using a ligation device. All patients in the both groups were alive during the 3-year observation period. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resection using a ligation device is a useful and safe method for resection of small rectal carcinoid tumors. (C) 2006 The WIG Press. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available