Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 21, 2015; 21(31): 9387-9393
Published online Aug 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387
Published online Aug 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387
EMR-C(n = 65) | ESD(n = 51) | P value | |
Procedure time (min), mean ± SD, | 3.83 ± 1.17 | 14.43 ± 7.26 | < 0.001 |
Complication | 0 (0.0) | 4 (7.8) | 0.044 |
Bleeding | 0 | 4 (7.8) | |
Perforation | 0 | 0 | |
Endoscopic complete resection | 65/65 (100) | 51/51 (100) | |
Histologic complete resection | 60/65 (92.3) | 40/51 (78.4) | 0.042 |
Vertical margin involvement | 1 (1.5) | 1 (2.0) | 0.864 |
Lateral margin involvement | 1 (1.5) | 2 (3.9) | 0.710 |
Vertical and Lateral margin involvement | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.9) | 0.159 |
Indeterminate margin | 3 (4.6) | 6 (11.8) | 0.178 |
Vertical:Lateral:Vertical and Lateral, n | 2:1:0 | 1:3:2 | |
Lymphovascular invasion | 0 | 1 | 0.322 |
- Citation: Park SB, Kim HW, Kang DH, Choi CW, Kim SJ, Nam HS. Advantage of endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(31): 9387-9393
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i31/9387.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387