File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)

Conference Paper: Endoscopic submuxosal dissection versus laparoscopic resection for early colorectal neoplasms: a case-control sutdy

TitleEndoscopic submuxosal dissection versus laparoscopic resection for early colorectal neoplasms: a case-control sutdy
Authors
KeywordsMedical sciences
Gastroenterology
Issue Date2010
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gie
Citation
The 11th Annual Meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association, New Orleans, LA., 1-5 May 2010. In Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2010, v. 71 n. 5, p. AB192-AB193, abstract S1553 How to Cite?
AbstractBACKGROUND: The standard treatment for large colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to complete endoscopic removal is laparoscopic resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recently introduced as a novel procedure that enables en bloc resection of large colorectal neoplasms. To date, no report can be found in the literature comparing ESD and laparoscopic resection for treating early colorectal neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of ESD versus laparoscopic resection for early colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to en bloc endoscopic resection with conventional techniques. METHODS: Between January 2006 and June 2009, 31 patients diagnosed with early colorectal neoplasms (≧2 cm in size and without endoscopic signs of massive submucosal invasion) that were deemed not feasible for en bloc endoscopic resection with conventional techniques underwent 33 ESDs. They were compared with a historical cohort (control group) of 28 patients with early colorectal neoplasms who underwent laparoscopic resection. Controls were matched for age, sex, and characteristics of the neoplasms, including site, size, and pathology. Short-term clinical outcomes including post-procedure recovery and morbidity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: ESD was successfully accomplished in 29 out of the 33 procedures (87.9%). In the ESD group, the mean size of the neoplasms was 2.2±0.18 cm, and the mean procedure time was 96 min (range, 40-108 min). En bloc resection was achieved in 27 ESD procedures (81.8%). Perforation occurred in 3 out of the 29 accomplished ESD procedures (10.3%), and all were successfully managed with endoscopic clipping. The laparoscopic group had a short-term morbidity rate of 35.7%. One patient developed anastomotic leak after laparoscopic resection and required reoperation. Comparing with the laparoscopic group, the ESD group had significantly lower morbidity, earlier post-procedure recovery, and shorter hospital stay (Table 1).
DescriptionThis journal issue entitled: DDW Abstract Issue 2010, Digestive Disease Week 2010
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/183234
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 6.217
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.390

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, TCen_US
dc.contributor.authorChiu, PWen_US
dc.contributor.authorNg, SSen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeung, WKen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, JFen_US
dc.contributor.authorNg, EKOen_US
dc.contributor.authorLau, JYen_US
dc.contributor.authorChan, FKen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-05-15T01:49:21Z-
dc.date.available2013-05-15T01:49:21Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.identifier.citationThe 11th Annual Meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association, New Orleans, LA., 1-5 May 2010. In Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2010, v. 71 n. 5, p. AB192-AB193, abstract S1553en_US
dc.identifier.issn0016-5107-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/183234-
dc.descriptionThis journal issue entitled: DDW Abstract Issue 2010, Digestive Disease Week 2010-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The standard treatment for large colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to complete endoscopic removal is laparoscopic resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recently introduced as a novel procedure that enables en bloc resection of large colorectal neoplasms. To date, no report can be found in the literature comparing ESD and laparoscopic resection for treating early colorectal neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of ESD versus laparoscopic resection for early colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to en bloc endoscopic resection with conventional techniques. METHODS: Between January 2006 and June 2009, 31 patients diagnosed with early colorectal neoplasms (≧2 cm in size and without endoscopic signs of massive submucosal invasion) that were deemed not feasible for en bloc endoscopic resection with conventional techniques underwent 33 ESDs. They were compared with a historical cohort (control group) of 28 patients with early colorectal neoplasms who underwent laparoscopic resection. Controls were matched for age, sex, and characteristics of the neoplasms, including site, size, and pathology. Short-term clinical outcomes including post-procedure recovery and morbidity were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: ESD was successfully accomplished in 29 out of the 33 procedures (87.9%). In the ESD group, the mean size of the neoplasms was 2.2±0.18 cm, and the mean procedure time was 96 min (range, 40-108 min). En bloc resection was achieved in 27 ESD procedures (81.8%). Perforation occurred in 3 out of the 29 accomplished ESD procedures (10.3%), and all were successfully managed with endoscopic clipping. The laparoscopic group had a short-term morbidity rate of 35.7%. One patient developed anastomotic leak after laparoscopic resection and required reoperation. Comparing with the laparoscopic group, the ESD group had significantly lower morbidity, earlier post-procedure recovery, and shorter hospital stay (Table 1).-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gie-
dc.relation.ispartofGastrointestinal Endoscopyen_US
dc.subjectMedical sciences-
dc.subjectGastroenterology-
dc.titleEndoscopic submuxosal dissection versus laparoscopic resection for early colorectal neoplasms: a case-control sutdyen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailLeung, WK: hku75407@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailNg, EKO: ngko@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, WK=rp01479en_US
dc.identifier.authorityNg, EKO=rp01364en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.328-
dc.identifier.hkuros214325en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros204609-
dc.identifier.volume71-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spageAB192, abstract S1553-
dc.identifier.epageAB193-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats