4.7 Article

Extended endoscopic mucosal resection does not reduce recurrence compared with standard endoscopic mucosal resection of large laterally spreading colorectal lesions

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 84, 期 6, 页码 997-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.05.015

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Effective interventions to prevent residual and/ or recurrent adenoma (RRA) after EMR of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSL) are yet to be determined. RRA may occur due to inconspicuous adenoma at the EMR margin. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of extended EMR (X-EMR) compared with standard EMR (S-EMR). Methods: A single-center post hoc analysis of LSL >= 20 mm referred for treatment was performed. S-EMR was the standard sequential inject and resect method including a 1-mm to 2-mm margin of normal mucosa around the lesion. With X-EMR, at least a 5-mm margin of normal mucosa was excised. Patient and lesion characteristics and procedural outcomes were recorded. The primary endpoint was RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy at 4 months. Results: Between January 2009 and May 2011, 471 lesions (mean size, 37.9 mm) in 424 patients were resected by S-EMR, and between January 2012 and December 2013, 448 lesions (mean size, 39.1 mm) in 396 patients were resected by X-EMR. Resection was successful in 92.3% and 92.6% of referred lesions in the S-EMR and X-EMR groups, respectively (P =.978). X-EMR was independently associated with a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding (IPB) (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-5.0; P <.001) but not other adverse events. RRA was present in 39 of 333 patients (11.7%) and 30 of 296 patients (10.1%) in the S-EMR and X-EMR groups, respectively (P =.15). X-EMR was not related to recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P =.399). Conclusions: X-EMR does not reduce RRA and increases the risk of IPB compared with S-EMR. Alternative methods for the prevention of RRA are required.

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