Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection from a Western perspective: Today’s promises and future challenges

Table 3 Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes for epithelial neoplasms in European studies

Ref.	Patients, n (% rectal)	Study design	Enrollment period	Size (mm)	Time (min)	En bloc (%)	R0 (%)	Perforation rate (%)	Delayed bleeding (%)	Hospital stay (d)	Follow-up
Farhat et al[16], 2011	85 (84.7)	Prospective	Jan 2008 Aug 2010	-	-	67	62.3	-	-	-	-
Probst et al[14], 2012	76 (86.6)	NS	Oct 2004 Sep 2011	45.8	176	81.6	69.7	6.6	10.5	-	Median: 23.6 mo (2-83) Included in follow-up: n = 65 9.2% residual neoplasms (5 piecemeal and 1 en bloc R1 lateral)
Repici et al[20], 2013	40 (100)	Prospective	Apr 2010 Jan 2011	46.8	86.1	90	80	5	2.5	-	Recurrences: 2.5%
Thorlacius et al[126], 2013	29 (59)	NS	Jan 2012 Mar 2013	28	142	72	69	6.9	0	-	Recurrences: 0% at 3-6 mo Missing rate: 82.7%
Spychalski et al[127], 2015	70 (56)	NS	Jun 2013 Jun 2014	30	110	66	-	8	6	-	Missing rate: 14.6% Recurrences: 4.9% Follow-up < 12 mo
Rahmi et al[128], 2014	45 (100)	NS	Feb 2010 Jun 2012	35	110	64	53	18	13	3.4	For curative resections at 12 mo: 88%
Bialek et al[129], 2014	37 (67.6)	Prospective	2007 2013	37	70	86.5	81.1	0	5.7	-	At 1-yr follow-up: 1.7% recurrences

The given values for the size of the lesion and the time spent on the procedure are shown as the measure of central tendency reported in the study (mean or median as appropriate). NS: Not specified. -: Information is not mentioned in the original paper.