首页> 外文期刊>Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology >Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor
【24h】

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor

机译:内镜黏膜下剥离术与经肛门内镜显微手术治疗直肠肿瘤的疗效和安全性比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background/Aim: To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors, including large adenoma, cancer, and subepithelial tumors (SET). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 71 patients with rectal tumors who were treated with ESD (48 patients) or TEM (23 patients) from January 2013 to December 2015. The patient group comprised 56 patients with epithelial tumors and 15 patients with SET. Treatment efficacy such as en bloc resection, procedure time, local recurrence, hospital stay, additional procedure rate, and safety between the treatment groups were evaluated and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor size, location, macroscopic appearance, and histological depth between ESD and TEM groups. For ESD compared to TEM in rectal epithelial tumors, en bloc resection rates were 95% vs. 93.7% and R0 resection rates were 92.5% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.617); in rectal SET, en bloc resection rates were 100% vs. 100% and R0 resection rates were 87% vs. 85% (P = 0.91). The procedure time was 71.5 ± 51.3 min vs. 105.6 ± 28.2 min (P = 0.016) for epithelial tumors and 32.13 ± 13.4 min vs. 80.71 ± 18.35 min (P = 0.00) for SET, respectively. Hospital stay was 4.3 ± 1.2 days vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 days (P = 0.001) for epithelial tumors and 4.1 ± 4.1 days vs. 5.5 ± 2 days (P = 0.42) for rectal SET, respectively. There were no significant differences between recurrence rates, additional procedure rates, and complications in the two groups. Conclusions: ESD and TEM are both effective and safe for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors and SET because of favorable R0 resection rates and recurrence rates. However, the ESD group showed shorter procedure times and hospital stays than the TEM group. Therefore, ESD should be considered more preferentially than TEM in the treatment of large rectal epithelial tumors and SET.
机译:背景/目的:比较内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)和经肛门内镜显微手术(TEM)治疗直肠上皮肿瘤,包括大腺瘤,癌症和上皮下肿瘤(SET)的疗效和安全性。患者和方法:我们对2013年1月至2015年12月接受ESD(48例)或TEM(23例)治疗的71例直肠肿瘤患者的病历进行了回顾性分析。患者组包括56例上皮性肿瘤患者15例SET患者。评估并分析了治疗效果,例如整体切除,手术时间,局部复发,住院时间,附加手术率和治疗组之间的安全性。结果:ESD和TEM组在肿瘤大小,位置,宏观外观和组织学深度方面无显着差异。对于直肠上皮肿瘤中的ESD与TEM相比,整体切除率分别为95%和93.7%,R0切除率分别为92.5%和87.5%(P = 0.617);在直肠SET中,整体切除率为100%对100%,R0切除率为87%对85%(P = 0.91)。上皮肿瘤的手术时间分别为71.5±51.3分钟和105.6±28.2分钟(P = 0.016),SET的手术时间分别为32.13±13.4 min和80.71±18.35 min(P = 0.00)。上皮肿瘤的住院时间分别为4.3±1.2天和5.8±1.8天(P = 0.001),而直肠SET的住院时间分别为4.1±4.1天和5.5±2天(P = 0.42)。两组的复发率,附加手术率和并发症之间无显着差异。结论:由于R0切除率和复发率高,ESD和TEM对直肠上皮肿瘤和SET均有效且安全。但是,ESD组的手术时间和住院时间均比TEM组短。因此,在治疗大的直肠上皮肿瘤和SET时,应比TEM更优先考虑ESD。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号