...
首页> 外文期刊>Gastroenterology research and practice >Resectability of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Ligation Band Device and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
【24h】

Resectability of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Ligation Band Device and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

机译:用结扎带装置和内镜粘膜粘膜切除肠道神经内分泌肿瘤的重新入射性和内镜粘膜粘膜

获取原文
           

摘要

Background. Rectal neuroendocrine tumors NETs10?mm in diameter, limited to the submucosa without local or distant metastasis, can be treated endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation band device (EMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been employed to resect rectal NETs. We evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes of EMR-L and ESD for endoscopic resection of rectal NETs G110?mm in diameter. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of 82 rectal NETs in 82 patients who underwent either EMR-L or ESD. Therapeutic outcomes (en bloc resection and complete resection rates), procedure time, and procedure-related adverse events were evaluated. Additionally, we measured the distance of the lateral and vertical margins from the border of the tumor in pathologic specimens and compared the resectability between EMR-L and ESD. Results. Sixty-six lesions were treated using EMR-L and 16 using ESD. En bloc resection was achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate with EMR-L was significantly higher than that with ESD (95.5% vs.75.0%, p=0.025). The prevalence of vertical margin involvement was significantly higher in the ESD group than in the EMR-L group (12.5% vs. 0%, p=0.036), and ESD was more time consuming than EMR-L (24.21±12.18 vs. 7.05±4.53?min, p0.001). The lateral and vertical margins were more distant in the EMR-L group than in the ESD group (lateral margin distance, 1661±849 vs. 1514±948?μm; vertical margin distance, 277±308 vs. 202±171?μm). Conclusions. EMR-L is more favorable for small rectal NETs with respect to therapeutic outcomes, procedure time, and technical difficulties. Additionally, EMR-L enables achievement of sufficient vertical margin distances.
机译:背景。直肠内分泌肿瘤肿瘤的直径净<10?mm直径,限于没有局部或远离转移的粘膜松,可以内窥镜治疗。用结扎带装置(EMR-1)和内窥镜粘膜粘膜(ESD)的内镜粘膜切除已用于切除直肠网。我们评估并比较了EMR-L和ESD的临床结果,用于直径直肠直肠网G1 <10Ωmm的内窥镜净切除。方法。我们在82名接受EMR-L或ESD的患者中对82例直肠网进行了回顾性研究。评估治疗结果(ENBOC切除和完全切除率),程序时间和与程序相关的不良事件进行了评估。另外,我们从病理样本中测量了横向和垂直边缘的横向和垂直边缘的距离,并比较了EMR-L和ESD之间的重新切性。结果。使用EMR-L和16使用EMR-L和16使用六十六个病变。 EN Bloc切除在所有患者中取得了成分。具有EMR-L的完全切除率明显高于ESD(95.5%Vs.75.0%,P = 0.025)。 ESD组垂直边缘参与的患病率显着高于EMR-L组(12.5%对0%,P = 0.036),ESD比EMR-L更耗时(24.21±12.18与7.05 ±4.53?min,p <0.001)。横向和垂直边缘在E​​MR-L组中比在ESD组中更远(横向边缘距离,1661±849与1514±948≤μm;垂直边距,277±308与202±171?μm) 。结论。 EMR-L更有利于小直肠网关于治疗结果,程序时间和技术困难。此外,EMR-L能够实现足够的垂直边缘距离。

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