4.5 Article

Efficacy of traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clip-and-thread technique: A prospective randomized study

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 467-476

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.13036

关键词

clip and thread; colorectal neoplasm; endoscopic submucosal dissection; procedure time; traction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging because of technical difficulties, long procedure time, and high risk of adverse events. To facilitate colorectal ESD, we developed traction-assisted colorectal ESD using a clip and thread (TAC-ESD) and conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate its efficacy. MethodsPatients with superficial colorectal neoplasms (SCN) 20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to the conventional-ESD group or to the TAC-ESD group. SCN 50 mm were treated by two intermediates, and SCN >50 mm were treated by two experts. Primary endpoint was procedure time. Secondary endpoints were TAC-ESD success rate (sustained application of the clip and thread until the end of the procedure), self-completion rate by the intermediates, and adverse events. ResultsAltogether, 42 SCN were analyzed in each ESD group (conventional and TAC). Procedure time (median [range]) for the TAC-ESD group was significantly shorter than that for the conventional-ESD group (40 [11-86] min vs 70 [30-180] min, respectively; P < 0.0001). Success rate of TAC-ESD was 95% (40/42). The intermediates' self-completion rate was significantly higher for the TAC-ESD group than for the conventional-ESD group (100% [39/39] vs 90% [36/40], respectively; P = 0.04). Adverse events included one intraoperative perforation in the conventional-ESD group and one delayed perforation in the TAC-ESD group. ConclusionTraction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection reduced the procedure time and increased the self-completion rate by the intermediates (UMIN000018612).

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