Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 28, 2012; 18(48): 7296-7301
Published online Dec 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i48.7296
Published online Dec 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i48.7296
Table 2 Endoscopic submucosal excavation treatment characteristics
| Group | Location (n) | Diameter (cm) | Operating time (min) | Success rate (%) | Full-thickness isolation (n) |
| CO2 | Esophagus (4) | 1.7 | 41 | 100 | 3 |
| Stomach (22) | 1.3 | 23 | |||
| Rectum (2) | 1.5 | 40 | |||
| Sigmoid colon (2) | 1.9 | 47 | |||
| Air | Esophagus (6) | 1.1 | 43 | 100 | 2 |
| Stomach (21) | 0.7 | 31 | |||
| Rectum (2) | 0.9 | 38 | |||
| Sigmoid colon (1) | 1.7 | 51 |
- Citation: Shi WB, Wang ZH, Qu CY, Zhang Y, Jiang H, Zhou M, Chen Y, Xu LM. Comparison between air and carbon dioxide insufflation in the endoscopic submucosal excavation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(48): 7296-7301
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i48/7296.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i48.7296