%0 Journal Article
%T Endoscopic Mucosal Resection after Circumferential Mucosal Incision of Large Colorectal Tumors:Comparison With Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection SciDoc Publishers | Open Access | Science Journals | Media Partners
%A Akira Andoh
%A Mitsuaki Ishida
%A Osamu Inatomi
%A Shigeki Bamba
%A Tomoyuki Tsujikawa
%A Yasuharu Saito
%A Yoshihide Fujiyama
%A Yosuke Mochizuki
%J Cancer Studies & Research (IJCR)
%D 2018
%R http://dx.doi.org/10.19070/2167-9118-130003
%X The patients¡¯ clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1. Their clinical outcomes are described in Table 2. No differences were observed between both groups in terms of gender, age, macroscopic type, or tumor location. LST of granular type (LST-G) was more frequent in the C-EMR group than in the ESD group (p = 0.0068). LST of nongranular type (LST-NG) was more frequent in the ESD group than in the C-EMR group (p = 0.0341).The mean procedure time was higher in the ESD group than in the C-EMR group (56 ¡À 20 min vs. 21 ¡À 11 min, respectively, p < 0.005). En bloc resection and complete curative resection rates were similar in both groups [ESD vs. C-EMR: 93.6% vs. 86.7%, p = not significant (NS); 87.2% vs. 80.0%, p = NS, respectively]. Perforation rate was 6.4% (n = 3) in the ESD group and 3.3% (n = 1) in the C-EMR group (p = NS). Endoclips were used for the two perforations that occurred during ESD; the perforations were managed conservatively. The patient in the C-EMR group who had a perforation developed abdominal pain in the evening following surgery. Surgery was required in this patient because CT revealed peritonitis with free air and ascites. Postoperative evaluation revealed a pinhole at the edge of the resected specimen, which probably occurred during circumferential mucosal incision
%K n/a
%U https://scidoc.org/IJCR-2167-9118-02-201.php