Cargando…

Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Background: The use of a retroflexed view exposes the entire tumor surface, which is obscured in the forward view, and contributes to complete tumor resection when combined with forward views. However, the efficacy and safety of using the retroflexed view for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fujihara, Shintaro, Kobara, Hideki, Mori, Hirohito, Goda, Yasuhiro, Chiyo, Taiga, Matsunaga, Tae, Nishiyama, Noriko, Ayaki, Maki, Yachida, Tatsuo, Masaki, Tsutomu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26078705
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.11930
_version_ 1782376231156580352
author Fujihara, Shintaro
Kobara, Hideki
Mori, Hirohito
Goda, Yasuhiro
Chiyo, Taiga
Matsunaga, Tae
Nishiyama, Noriko
Ayaki, Maki
Yachida, Tatsuo
Masaki, Tsutomu
author_facet Fujihara, Shintaro
Kobara, Hideki
Mori, Hirohito
Goda, Yasuhiro
Chiyo, Taiga
Matsunaga, Tae
Nishiyama, Noriko
Ayaki, Maki
Yachida, Tatsuo
Masaki, Tsutomu
author_sort Fujihara, Shintaro
collection PubMed
description Background: The use of a retroflexed view exposes the entire tumor surface, which is obscured in the forward view, and contributes to complete tumor resection when combined with forward views. However, the efficacy and safety of using the retroflexed view for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are poorly understood. Methods: In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the retroflexed view in colorectal ESD. From April 2009 to December 2013, 130 colorectal tumors were examined in 128 patients treated with ESD. A total of 119 patients with a mean tumor size of 27.2 mm were enrolled in the study, and these patients were assigned to undergo colorectal ESD with or without a retroflexed view. Results: The use of retroflexion was successful in 84.2% of patients. There were no perforations in the study and no complications related to the use of retroflexed views. The mean procedure time was 103.6±55.8 min in the retroflexed group, as compared with 108.0±66.5 min in the forward view group. The mean procedure time for resecting tumors >40 mm was significantly shorter in the retroflexed group relative to the forward group. Additionally, the mean dissection speed per unit area was significantly faster in the retroflexed group, as compared with the forward group. Conclusions: Retroflexed views can be used to remove lesions >40 mm and shorten procedure times. Retroflexion may also contribute to an improved en bloc resection rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4466509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Ivyspring International Publisher
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44665092015-06-15 Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Fujihara, Shintaro Kobara, Hideki Mori, Hirohito Goda, Yasuhiro Chiyo, Taiga Matsunaga, Tae Nishiyama, Noriko Ayaki, Maki Yachida, Tatsuo Masaki, Tsutomu Int J Med Sci Research Paper Background: The use of a retroflexed view exposes the entire tumor surface, which is obscured in the forward view, and contributes to complete tumor resection when combined with forward views. However, the efficacy and safety of using the retroflexed view for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are poorly understood. Methods: In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the retroflexed view in colorectal ESD. From April 2009 to December 2013, 130 colorectal tumors were examined in 128 patients treated with ESD. A total of 119 patients with a mean tumor size of 27.2 mm were enrolled in the study, and these patients were assigned to undergo colorectal ESD with or without a retroflexed view. Results: The use of retroflexion was successful in 84.2% of patients. There were no perforations in the study and no complications related to the use of retroflexed views. The mean procedure time was 103.6±55.8 min in the retroflexed group, as compared with 108.0±66.5 min in the forward view group. The mean procedure time for resecting tumors >40 mm was significantly shorter in the retroflexed group relative to the forward group. Additionally, the mean dissection speed per unit area was significantly faster in the retroflexed group, as compared with the forward group. Conclusions: Retroflexed views can be used to remove lesions >40 mm and shorten procedure times. Retroflexion may also contribute to an improved en bloc resection rate. Ivyspring International Publisher 2015-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4466509/ /pubmed/26078705 http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.11930 Text en © 2015 Ivyspring International Publisher. Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. See http://ivyspring.com/terms for terms and conditions.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Fujihara, Shintaro
Kobara, Hideki
Mori, Hirohito
Goda, Yasuhiro
Chiyo, Taiga
Matsunaga, Tae
Nishiyama, Noriko
Ayaki, Maki
Yachida, Tatsuo
Masaki, Tsutomu
Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_full Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_fullStr Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_short Comparison of Retroflexed and Forward Views for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_sort comparison of retroflexed and forward views for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26078705
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/ijms.11930
work_keys_str_mv AT fujiharashintaro comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT kobarahideki comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT morihirohito comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT godayasuhiro comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT chiyotaiga comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT matsunagatae comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT nishiyamanoriko comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT ayakimaki comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT yachidatatsuo comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT masakitsutomu comparisonofretroflexedandforwardviewsforcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection