Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 28, 2015; 21(44): 12635-12643
Published online Nov 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i44.12635
Table 4 Factors associated with delayed perforation induced by gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)
Clinicopathological findingUnivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis, OR (95%CI), P value
ESD cases without perforation (n = 4813)ESD cases with delayed perforation (n = 7)P value
Age (yr)1.00-
< 702538 (99.8)4 (0.2)
≥ 702275 (99.9)3 (0.1)
Sex0.16-
Male3828 (99.9)4 (0.1)
Female985 (99.7)3 (0.3)
Chronological periods1.00-
1st period: 1999-20052194 (99.9)3 (0.1)
2nd period: 2006-20122619 (99.8)4 (0.2)
Clinical indications0.02NS
Outside indications169 (98.8)2 (1.2)
Other indications14644 (99.9)5 (0.1)
Stomach status0.00611.0 (1.7-73.3), 0.013
Normal stomach/Remnant stomach4732 (99.9)5 (0.1)
Gastric tube81 (97.6)2 (2.4)
Location0.047NS
Upper/Middle2894 (99.8)7 (0.2)
Lower1919 (100)0 (0.0)
Circumference0.09-
Greater curvature774 (99.6)3 (0.4)
Others24039 (99.9)4 (0.1)
Size (mm)0.43-
≤ 203395 (99.9)4 (0.1)
> 201418 (99.8)3 (0.2)
Depth of invasion0.34-
M3988 (99.9)5 (0.1)
SM825 (99.8)2 (0.2)
Ulceration0.34-
Absent3982 (99.9)5 (0.1)
Present831 (99.8)2 (0.2)
Histological type0.09-
Differentiated4466 (99.9)5 (0.1)
Undifferentiated347 (99.4)2 (0.6)
Type of resection1.00-
En bloc resection4743 (99.9)7 (0.1)
Piecemeal resection70 (100)0 (0.0)
Procedure time (h)0.046NS
< 23758 (99.9)3 (0.1)
≥ 21055 (99.6)4 (0.4)