4.7 Article

Management of perforation related to endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 1129-1137

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is being performed more frequently as a local treatment for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors (SDETs). However, ESD for SDETs is technically difficult because of specific anatomic features that increase the risk of perforation and often require surgery. This study was performed to evaluate the management of ESD-related perforation in patients with SDETs. Methods: Patients who underwent ESD for SDETs from July 2010 to December 2018 were studied. We collected data on complete closure, insertion of endoscopic nasobiliary and pancreatic duct drainage (ENBPD) tubes, and additional interventions. We also evaluated clinical outcomes, including the fasting period, hospital stay, and maximum serum C-reactive protein level. Results: ESD was completed in 264 patients with SDETs. Perforation was observed in 36 patients, including 4 patients with delayed perforation. Among 32 patients with intraoperative perforation, complete closure was achieved in 13 patients. Compared with patients without complete closure, the fasting period and hospital stay were significantly shorter and the maximum serum C-reactive protein level was significantly lower in patients with complete closure, which were equivalent to those in patients without perforation. In patients without complete closure for mucosal defect, no additional interventions were required when an ENBPD tube was inserted, whereas 2 patients without ENBPD tube insertion underwent additional interventions such as percutaneous drainage and a surgical operation. Conclusions: Perforation associated with ESD for SDETs required complex conservative management with complete closure or insertion of an ENBPD tube.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据