Cargando…

Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Adequate exposure of the dissection site is very important for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the preincision traction (PIT) method using an internal clip-with-spring device in comparison with the conventional on-demand traction...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Jun, Wei, Yunlei, Zhang, Di, Hou, Xiaojia, Shen, Ming, Chen, Kan, Wu, Ruijin, Peng, Kangsheng, Liu, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36201665
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000539
_version_ 1784856774748143616
author Li, Jun
Wei, Yunlei
Zhang, Di
Hou, Xiaojia
Shen, Ming
Chen, Kan
Wu, Ruijin
Peng, Kangsheng
Liu, Feng
author_facet Li, Jun
Wei, Yunlei
Zhang, Di
Hou, Xiaojia
Shen, Ming
Chen, Kan
Wu, Ruijin
Peng, Kangsheng
Liu, Feng
author_sort Li, Jun
collection PubMed
description Adequate exposure of the dissection site is very important for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the preincision traction (PIT) method using an internal clip-with-spring device in comparison with the conventional on-demand traction (ODT) method in assisting colorectal ESD. METHODS: This was a prospective nested case-control study. A total of 26 patients for PIT-ESD and other 26 patients for ODT-ESD were involved. Data on clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The en bloc resection rate (both 100%) and curative resection rate (92.3% vs 96.2%) showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Compared with ODT-ESD, PIT-ESD significantly reduced the procedure time (29.8 ± 18.4 vs 57.4 ± 33.7 minutes, P = 0.001) and submucosal injection volume (49.6 ± 32.3 vs 70.8 ± 37.6 mL, P = 0.034), decreased the rate of intraoperative bleeding (26.9% vs 57.7%, P = 0.025) and muscular injury (7.7% vs 34.6%, P = 0.038), and shortened the postoperative hospital stay (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.5 ± 1.2, P = 0.015). DISCUSSION: The PIT method could significantly improve the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9780113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97801132022-12-23 Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Li, Jun Wei, Yunlei Zhang, Di Hou, Xiaojia Shen, Ming Chen, Kan Wu, Ruijin Peng, Kangsheng Liu, Feng Clin Transl Gastroenterol Article Adequate exposure of the dissection site is very important for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the preincision traction (PIT) method using an internal clip-with-spring device in comparison with the conventional on-demand traction (ODT) method in assisting colorectal ESD. METHODS: This was a prospective nested case-control study. A total of 26 patients for PIT-ESD and other 26 patients for ODT-ESD were involved. Data on clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The en bloc resection rate (both 100%) and curative resection rate (92.3% vs 96.2%) showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Compared with ODT-ESD, PIT-ESD significantly reduced the procedure time (29.8 ± 18.4 vs 57.4 ± 33.7 minutes, P = 0.001) and submucosal injection volume (49.6 ± 32.3 vs 70.8 ± 37.6 mL, P = 0.034), decreased the rate of intraoperative bleeding (26.9% vs 57.7%, P = 0.025) and muscular injury (7.7% vs 34.6%, P = 0.038), and shortened the postoperative hospital stay (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.5 ± 1.2, P = 0.015). DISCUSSION: The PIT method could significantly improve the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Wolters Kluwer 2022-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9780113/ /pubmed/36201665 http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000539 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Article
Li, Jun
Wei, Yunlei
Zhang, Di
Hou, Xiaojia
Shen, Ming
Chen, Kan
Wu, Ruijin
Peng, Kangsheng
Liu, Feng
Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_full Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_fullStr Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_short Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
title_sort comparison between preincision traction and on-demand traction in assisting colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36201665
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000539
work_keys_str_mv AT lijun comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT weiyunlei comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT zhangdi comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT houxiaojia comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT shenming comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT chenkan comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT wuruijin comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT pengkangsheng comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection
AT liufeng comparisonbetweenpreincisiontractionandondemandtractioninassistingcolorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissection