Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2017; 23(3): 478-485
Published online Jan 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i3.478
Published online Jan 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i3.478
Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics and procedure outcomes of the 156 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas in 147 patients n (%)
Patients = 147, ESCC = 156 | |
Age, median (range) | 68 (46-88) |
Sex | |
Male | 131 (89.1) |
Female | 16 (10.9) |
Lesion | |
Maximum dimension, median (range), mm | 29 (6-68) |
Location | |
Upper | 8 (5.1) |
Middle | 83 (53.2) |
Lower | 65 (41.7) |
Depth of invasion | |
EP | 50 (32.1) |
LPM | 44 (28.2) |
MM | 37 (23.7) |
SM1 | 8 (5.1) |
SM2 | 17 (10.9) |
Macroscopic type | |
0-IIc | 151 (96.8) |
0-IIa | 3 (1.9) |
0-I + IIc | 2 (1.3) |
Predominant site | |
Right | 102 (65.4) |
Left | 54 (34.6) |
Operator | |
Instructor | 100 (64.1) |
Novice | 56 (35.9) |
Procedure time, mean ± SD, min | 107.1 ± 50.4 |
En block resection | 141 (90.4) |
Perforation | 9 (5.8) |
Late perforation | 0 (0.0) |
Table 2 Clinicopathological findings associated with intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)
Perforated group | Non-perforated group | P value | |
n = 9 | n = 147 | ||
Age, mean ± SD | 67.9 ± 9.7 | 68.1 ± 7.5 | 0.929 |
Sex | |||
Male | 9 (100) | 131 (89.1) | |
Female | 0 (0) | 16 (10.9) | 0.599 |
History of treatment for esophageal carcinoma, n (%) | |||
Yes | 0 (0) | 17 (11.6) | |
No | 9 (100) | 130 (88.4) | 0.599 |
Maximum dimension of lesion, mean ± SD, mm | 42.9 ± 19.3 | 30.8 ± 14.1 | 0.016 |
Mucosal deficiency ≥ 75% circumference, n (%) | |||
Yes | 7 (77.8) | 45 (30.6) | |
No | 2 (22.2) | 102 (69.4) | 0.007 |
Location | |||
Upper | 0 (0) | 8 (5.4) | |
Middle | 4 (44.4) | 79 (53.7) | |
Lower | 5 (55.6) | 60 (40.8) | 0.697 |
Depth of invasion | |||
M | 6 (66.7) | 125 (85.0) | |
SM | 3 (33.3) | 22 (15.0) | 0.158 |
Predominant site | |||
Right | 4 (44.4) | 98 (66.7) | |
Left | 5 (55.6) | 49 (33.3) | 0.277 |
Operator | |||
Instructor | 6 (66.7) | 94 (63.9) | |
Novice | 3 (33.3) | 53 (36.1) | 1.00 |
Procedure time, mean ± SD, min | 183.8 ± 48.7 | 102.4 ± 46.7 | < 0.001 |
En bloc resection | 3 (33.3) | 138 (93.9) | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Risk factors for perforation by univariate analysis
Factor | Odds ratio1 (95%CI) | P value |
Age (10 yr increments) | 0.96 (0.40-2.32) | 0.931 |
Maximum dimension of lesion (10 mm increments) | 1.64 (1.07-2.52) | 0.025 |
Mucosal deficiency (< 75% vs≥ 75% circumference) | 7.93 (1.59-39.7) | 0.012 |
Location (upper + middle vs lower) | 1.86 (0.48-7.23) | 0.368 |
Depth of invasion (M vs SM) | 3.00 (0.69-12.9) | 0.140 |
Predominant site (right vs left) | 2.50 (0.64-9.72) | 0.186 |
Operator (novice vs instructor) | 1.13 (0.27-4.69) | 0.869 |
Table 4 Risk factors for perforation by multivariate analysis
Factor | Odds ratio1 (95%CI) | P value |
Mucosal deficiency (< 75% vs≥ 75% circumference | 7.37 (1.45-37.4) | 0.016 |
Depth of invasion (M vs SM) | 2.63 (0.57-12.2) | 0.218 |
Predominant site (right vs left) | 2.33 (0.57-9.57) | 0.240 |
Table 5 Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in perforation cases (n = 9)
Case | Age | Sex | Location | Predo-minant site | Circum-ference of tumor | Circum-ference of mucosal deficiency | Maximum dimension (mm) | Macroscopic type | Procedure time (mm) | En bloc resection | Swiching to EPMR after perforation | Depth of invasion | Perforation site |
1 | 70 | M | Middle | Right | 2/3 | 3/4 | 54 | 0-IIc | 240 | No | Yes | SM2 | Left |
2 | 59 | M | Lower | Left | 1/2 | 7/8 | 50 | 0-IIc | 240 | Yes | No | M3 | Left |
3 | 61 | M | Lower | Left | 3/4 | 7/8 | 38 | 0-IIc | 150 | No | Yes | M2 | Left |
4 | 58 | M | Middle | Right | 1/3 | 1/2 | 30 | 0-IIc | 140 | No | Yes | SM2 | Posterior > left |
5 | 77 | M | Lower | Left | 3/4 | 7/8 | 67 | 0-IIc | 210 | Yes | No | M3 | Anterior > left |
6 | 61 | M | Middle | Right | 1/2 | 7/8 | 40 | 0-IIc | 210 | No | No | M2 | Left |
7 | 77 | M | Lower | Left | 1/2 | 3/4 | 32 | 0-IIc | 150 | No | Yes | M3 | Left |
8 | 85 | M | Middle | Left | Circ | Circ | 68 | 0-IIc | 210 | Yes | No | SM2 | Left |
9 | 63 | M | Lower | Right | 1/8 | 1/2 | 7 | 0-IIc | 104 | No | Yes | M1 | Right |
Table 6 Clinical courses and treatment after perforations (n = 9)
Case | Fasting duration (d) | Hospitali-zation (d) | Maximal CRP (mg/dL) | Complication | Treatment | Local recurrence | Follow-up (mo) | |||||||
Pneumo-derma | Pneumo-thorax | Pleural effusion | Hypoxia | Fever ( °C) | Closing by clips | ABx | NG tube | Chest drain | ||||||
1 | 8 | 20 | 26.5 | − | − | + | − | 38.1 | Possible | + | − | + | −1 | 59 |
2 | 8 | 13 | 6.7 | + | − | − | − | 37.7 | Possible | + | − | − | − | 50 |
3 | 6 | 12 | 5.7 | + | − | − | + | 37.6 | Possible | + | + | − | − | 41 |
4 | 5 | 8 | 1.9 | + | − | − | − | 37.2 | Possible | + | − | − | −2 | 46 |
5 | 5 | 7 | 6.9 | + | − | + | − | < 37.0 | Possible | + | + | − | − | 42 |
6 | 19 | 22 | 16.7 | + | − | + | + | 38.3 | Impossible | + | + | + | − | 40 |
7 | 22 | 41 | 6.3 | + | − | − | + | 37.6 | Impossible | + | + | − | − | 30 |
8 | 6 | 9 | 5.5 | + | − | + | + | < 37.0 | Impossible | + | − | − | −2 | 28 |
9 | 6 | 9 | 8.8 | + | − | − | + | 37.8 | Possible | + | + | − | − | 53 |
- Citation: Noguchi M, Yano T, Kato T, Kadota T, Imajoh M, Morimoto H, Osera S, Yagishita A, Odagaki T, Yoda Y, Oono Y, Ikematsu H, Kaneko K. Risk factors for intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(3): 478-485
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i3/478.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i3.478