Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor.
Duodenal epithelial tumor
Endoscopic resection
Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection
Journal
Clinical endoscopy
ISSN: 2234-2400
Titre abrégé: Clin Endosc
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101576886
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
03
06
2020
accepted:
07
09
2020
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
19
2
2021
entrez:
18
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is challenging. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is also problematic due to the anatomical features of the duodenum. We compared the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) with those of CEMR through a retrospective analysis. Altogether, 44 consecutive patients with 46 SNADETs underwent ER (18 CEMR cases and 28 UEMR cases) between January 2016 and October 2019. We investigated the proportions of en bloc resection, R0 resection, complications, resection time, and total procedure time and compared the outcomes of patients from the CEMR group with those of patients from the UEMR group. The median tumor size was 8.0 mm (range, 2.0-20.0 mm). The UEMR group showed a higher proportion of en bloc resection (96.4% vs. 72.2%, p<0.05) and significantly lower median resection time and total procedure time (4 min vs. 9.5 min, p<0.05 and 13 min vs. 19 min, p<0.05; respectively) than the CEMR group. No complications were observed. However, two patients treated with piecemeal resection in the CEMR group had residual tumors. UEMR is a feasible therapeutic option for SNADETs. It can be recommended as a standard treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is challenging. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is also problematic due to the anatomical features of the duodenum. We compared the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) with those of CEMR through a retrospective analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
Altogether, 44 consecutive patients with 46 SNADETs underwent ER (18 CEMR cases and 28 UEMR cases) between January 2016 and October 2019. We investigated the proportions of en bloc resection, R0 resection, complications, resection time, and total procedure time and compared the outcomes of patients from the CEMR group with those of patients from the UEMR group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median tumor size was 8.0 mm (range, 2.0-20.0 mm). The UEMR group showed a higher proportion of en bloc resection (96.4% vs. 72.2%, p<0.05) and significantly lower median resection time and total procedure time (4 min vs. 9.5 min, p<0.05 and 13 min vs. 19 min, p<0.05; respectively) than the CEMR group. No complications were observed. However, two patients treated with piecemeal resection in the CEMR group had residual tumors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
UEMR is a feasible therapeutic option for SNADETs. It can be recommended as a standard treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33596634
pii: ce.2020.147
doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.147
pmc: PMC8182245
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
371-378Références
Scand J Gastroenterol. 1994 Jun;29(6):483-7
pubmed: 8079103
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):136-7
pubmed: 22930172
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Sep;78(3):496-502
pubmed: 23642790
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):133-5
pubmed: 23364841
Dig Endosc. 2014 Apr;26 Suppl 2:23-9
pubmed: 24750144
Am J Gastroenterol. 1992 Jan;87(1):37-42
pubmed: 1728122
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jul;32(5):753-760
pubmed: 31498932
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jan;69(1):66-73
pubmed: 18725157
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 May;110(5):697-707
pubmed: 25848926
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Aug;86(2):329-332
pubmed: 28003118
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1984 Aug 3;109(31-32):1183-6
pubmed: 6745123
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Oct;84(4):688-96
pubmed: 26975231
Dig Endosc. 2015 Mar;27(3):323-30
pubmed: 25186455
Endosc Int Open. 2013 Dec;1(1):2-7
pubmed: 26135505
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Feb;106(2):357-64
pubmed: 21139577
Endoscopy. 2015 Feb;47(2):129-35
pubmed: 25314330
Gut. 2002 Jul;51(1):130-1
pubmed: 12077106
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov 21;16(43):5474-80
pubmed: 21086567
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct;88(4):676-682
pubmed: 29753040
Endoscopy. 2018 Feb;50(2):154-158
pubmed: 28962044
Gut. 2004 Feb;53(2):261-5
pubmed: 14724161
Endoscopy. 2005 Aug;37(8):755-9
pubmed: 16032496
Endoscopy. 2005 May;37(5):444-8
pubmed: 15844023
Dig Endosc. 2014 Mar;26(2):220-7
pubmed: 23621427
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Oct;84(4):697-9
pubmed: 27633362
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):138-41
pubmed: 23322475