4.4 Article

Endoscopic Resection of Cecal Polyps Involving the Appendiceal Orifice: A KASID Multicenter Study

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 3138-3148

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4760-2

关键词

Appendix; Colonic polyps; Colonoscopy; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoscopic resection of polyps located at the appendiceal orifice (AO) is challenging, and the feasibility and outcomes of endoscopic resection for cecal polyps involving AO are unconfirmed. We evaluated the feasibility and outcomes of endoscopic resection for cecal polyps involving AO. In this retrospective, multicenter study involving nine tertiary referral centers, we evaluated 131 patients who underwent endoscopic resection for cecal polyps involving AO. The median size of polyps resected was 10 mm (range 3-60 mm). Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection were performed in 75 (57.3%), 31 (23.7%), and 5 (3.8%) patients, respectively. The en bloc resection rate was 68.7%. Endoscopic complete resection was achieved in 123 lesions (93.9%). Intraprocedural and delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (10.7%) and three patients (2.3%), respectively, and perforation occurred in two patients (1.5%). Seven patients (5.3%) underwent additional surgery because of treatment failure or recurrence. Polyps of ae20 mm in size showed significantly higher rates of perforation and additional surgery (p < 0.05), and a lower rate of en bloc resection (p < 0.005). Patients with polyps involving ae75% of AO circumference exhibited a significantly lower rate of en bloc resection (p < 0.001), and significantly higher rates of surgery and recurrence (p < 0.05). Recurrence during follow-up occurred in 12 patients (15.6%); polyps involving ae75% of AO circumference were an independent risk factor for recurrence. Endoscopic resection of cecal polyps involving AO is safe and effective in select patients.

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

4.4
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