4.5 Review

Clinical and technical outcomes of endoscopic closure of postendoscopic submucosal dissection defects: Literature review over one decade

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 216-231

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.14397

关键词

clip; endoscopic submucosal dissection; gastrointestinal neoplasm; hemorrhage; suture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review investigated the clinical efficacy and technical outcomes of endoscopic prophylactic closure for post-ESD defects. The closure group showed significantly lower rates of overall adverse events and delayed bleeding compared to the non-closure group in the stomach, duodenum, and colorectum.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which enables curative en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms, has been an attractive minimally invasive surgery during the past two decades. Large post-ESD defects must be carefully managed to prevent adverse events (AEs). The major AEs comprise delayed bleeding (DB) and delayed perforation (DP), and overall AEs comprise DB plus DP. This review aimed to clarify the clinical efficacy and technical outcomes of endoscopic prophylactic closure for post-ESD defects. We identified studies involving >= 10 patients up to March 2022 in which endoscopic closure was applied for gastric, duodenal, and colorectal post-ESD defects. In the stomach, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure than non-closure group. In the duodenum, total rates of overall AEs, DB, and DP were significantly lower in the closure group. In the colorectum, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure group. Closure techniques, categorized into three groups (clip-based techniques, mechanical clipping, and surgical stitch-based techniques), were illustrated. Endoscopic closure demonstrated a certain ability to reduce DB after gastric, duodenal, and colorectal ESD as well as DP after duodenal ESD. Considering closure-associated costs, the indications and limitations of closure techniques should be further investigated.

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

4.5
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