4.5 Article

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms using a new over-the-scope clip system: A single-centre study

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 1009-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.04.015

关键词

Adenoma relapse; Colorectal cancer; Full thickness resection; No lift lesion; Scar of previous endoscopic resection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) provides complete en-bloc resection with a histopathological evaluation of submucosal, muscular, and serosal layers. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel over-the-scope device for colorectal EFTR. Material and methods: In this retrospective, observational, open-label case study, a total of 20 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms, underwent EFTR using a new endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tubingen, Germany). Endoscopic treatment outcomes (technical success, rate of EFTR, adverse events) and early follow-up at three months, were analyzed. Results: We reported a 100% of technical success, defined as full-thickness resection. Among the R1 resections, histology was negative for neoplasm. Non-lifting adenomas had histology positive for adenocarcinoma: seven T1/G1/sm1; one T1/G1/sm2; one, who underwent a surgical resection, T1/G1/sm3. Mean size of the resected lesions was 26 mm, ranging from 10 to 42 mm. One (5%) patient developed abdominal pain, fever and leukocytosis and was treated conservatively with medical therapy. In all specimens, histological complete resection was confirmed. Conclusions: EFTR is a feasible and effective technique that could become a valid alternative to EMR and ESD in the management of recurrent adenomas, no-lifting lesions and scars of R1 resections. However, prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the device and technique. (C) 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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