4.3 Article

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the West - when can satisfactory results be obtained? A single-operator learning curve analysis

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 52, 期 12, 页码 1442-1452

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1379557

关键词

Endoscopic submucosal resection; colorectal endoscopy; early gastrointestinal neoplasia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Up to date we lack a detailed description of the colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) learning curve, that would represent the experience of the Western center. The aim of this study was to define the critical points of the learning curve and to draw up lesions qualification guidelines tailored to the endoscopists experience.Materials and methods: We have carried out a single center prospective study. Between June 2013 and December 2016, 228 primary colorectal lesions were managed by ESD procedure. In order to create a learning curve model and to carry out the analysis the cases were divided into six periods, each consisting of 38 cases.Results: The overall en bloc resection rate was 79.39%. The lowest en bloc resection rate (52.36%) was observed in the first period. After completing 76 procedures, the resection rate surged to 86% and it was accompanied by the significant increase in the mean procedure speed of 9cm(2)/h. Lesions localization and diameter had a signification impact on the outcomes. After 76 procedures, en bloc resection rate of 90.9 and 90.67% were achieved for the left side of colon and rectum, respectively. In the right side of colon statistically significant lower resection rate of 67.57% was observed.Conclusion: We have proved that in the setting of the Western center, colorectal ESD can yield excellent results. It seems that the key to the success during the learning period is tailoring' lesions qualification guidelines to the experience of the endoscopist, as lesions diameter and localization highly influence the outcomes.

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

4.3
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