Retrospective Cohort Study
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
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
Male131 (89.1)
Female16 (10.9)
Lesion
Maximum dimension, median (range), mm29 (6-68)
Location
Upper8 (5.1)
Middle83 (53.2)
Lower65 (41.7)
Depth of invasion
EP50 (32.1)
LPM44 (28.2)
MM37 (23.7)
SM18 (5.1)
SM217 (10.9)
Macroscopic type
0-IIc151 (96.8)
0-IIa3 (1.9)
0-I + IIc2 (1.3)
Predominant site
Right102 (65.4)
Left54 (34.6)
Operator
Instructor100 (64.1)
Novice56 (35.9)
Procedure time, mean ± SD, min107.1 ± 50.4
En block resection141 (90.4)
Perforation9 (5.8)
Late perforation0 (0.0)
Table 2 Clinicopathological findings associated with intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)
Perforated group
Non-perforated group
P value
n = 9n = 147
Age, mean ± SD67.9 ± 9.768.1 ± 7.50.929
Sex
Male9 (100)131 (89.1)
Female0 (0)16 (10.9)0.599
History of treatment for esophageal carcinoma, n (%)
Yes0 (0)17 (11.6)
No9 (100)130 (88.4)0.599
Maximum dimension of lesion, mean ± SD, mm42.9 ± 19.330.8 ± 14.10.016
Mucosal deficiency ≥ 75% circumference, n (%)
Yes7 (77.8)45 (30.6)
No2 (22.2)102 (69.4)0.007
Location
Upper0 (0)8 (5.4)
Middle4 (44.4)79 (53.7)
Lower5 (55.6)60 (40.8)0.697
Depth of invasion
M6 (66.7)125 (85.0)
SM3 (33.3)22 (15.0)0.158
Predominant site
Right4 (44.4)98 (66.7)
Left5 (55.6)49 (33.3)0.277
Operator
Instructor6 (66.7)94 (63.9)
Novice3 (33.3)53 (36.1)1.00
Procedure time, mean ± SD, min183.8 ± 48.7102.4 ± 46.7< 0.001
En bloc resection3 (33.3)138 (93.9)< 0.001
Table 3 Risk factors for perforation by univariate analysis
FactorOdds 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
FactorOdds ratio1 (95%CI)P value
Mucosal deficiency (< 75% vs≥ 75% circumference7.37 (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)
CaseAgeSexLocationPredo-minant siteCircum-ference of tumorCircum-ference of mucosal deficiencyMaximum dimension (mm)Macroscopic typeProcedure time (mm)En bloc resectionSwiching to EPMR after perforationDepth of invasionPerforation site
170MMiddleRight2/33/4540-IIc240NoYesSM2Left
259MLowerLeft1/27/8500-IIc240YesNoM3Left
361MLowerLeft3/47/8380-IIc150NoYesM2Left
458MMiddleRight1/31/2300-IIc140NoYesSM2Posterior > left
577MLowerLeft3/47/8670-IIc210YesNoM3Anterior > left
661MMiddleRight1/27/8400-IIc210NoNoM2Left
777MLowerLeft1/23/4320-IIc150NoYesM3Left
885MMiddleLeftCircCirc680-IIc210YesNoSM2Left
963MLowerRight1/81/270-IIc104NoYesM1Right
Table 6 Clinical courses and treatment after perforations (n = 9)
CaseFasting duration (d)Hospitali-zation (d)Maximal CRP (mg/dL)Complication
Treatment
Local recurrenceFollow-up (mo)
Pneumo-dermaPneumo-thoraxPleural effusionHypoxiaFever ( °C)Closing by clipsABxNG tubeChest drain
182026.5+38.1Possible++159
28136.7+37.7Possible+50
36125.7++37.6Possible++41
4581.9+37.2Possible+246
5576.9++< 37.0Possible++42
6192216.7+++38.3Impossible+++40
722416.3++37.6Impossible++30
8695.5+++< 37.0Impossible+228
9698.8++37.8Possible++53