4.6 Article

Clinical benefit of the multibending endoscope for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

ENDOSCOPY
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 683-690

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1288-0570

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ESD procedure time was significantly shorter and muscle layer damage occurred less frequently with the multibending endoscope. Multibending endoscopy is recommended for ESD in the upper and middle thirds of the stomach to reduce procedure time and complications.
Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ESD using a multibending endoscope to treat superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Methods Patients with a single early gastric cancer who met the absolute or expanded indications for ESD according to the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo ESD using a conventional endoscope (C-ESD) or a multibending endoscope (M-ESD). Randomization was stratified by ESD operator experience and tumor location. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time, calculated as the time from the start of submucosal injection to complete removal of the tumor. Results 60 patients were analyzed (30 C-ESD, 30 M-ESD). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) ESD procedure times for M-ESD and C-ESD were 34.6 (SD 17.2) and 47.2 (SD 26.7) minutes, respectively ( P =0.03). Muscle layer damage occurred significantly less frequently with M-ESD (0.2 [SD 0.7] vs. 0.7 [SD 1.0]; P =0.04). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in procedure time or damage to muscle layers for tumors located in the lower third of the stomach. Conclusions ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with the multibending endoscope and fewer muscles were damaged. We recommend multibending endoscopy for ESD in the upper and middle thirds of the stomach to reduce procedure time and incidence of complications.

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

4.6
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