Published online Nov 25, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i17.1243
Peer-review started: May 8, 2015
First decision: June 2, 2015
Revised: July 10, 2015
Accepted: September 30, 2015
Article in press: October 9, 2015
Published online: November 25, 2015
Processing time: 208 Days and 23.4 Hours
AIM: To compare the short term outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with that of laparoscopic colorectal resection (LC) for the treatment of early colorectal epithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic removal.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. The clinical data of all consecutive patients who underwent ESD for endoscopically assessed benign lesions that were larger than 2 cm in diameter from 2009 to 2013 were collected. These patients were compared with a cohort of controls who underwent LC from 2005 to 2013. Lesions that were proven to be malignant by initial endoscopic biopsies were excluded. Mid and lower rectal lesions were not included because total mesorectal excision, which bears a more complicated postoperative course, is not indicated for lesions without histological proof of malignancy. Both ESD and LC were performed by the same surgical unit with a standardized technique. The patients were managed according to a standard protocol, and they were closely monitored for complications after the procedures. All hospital records were reviewed, and the following data were compared between the ESD and LC groups: patient demographics, size and location of the lesions, procedure time, short-term clinical outcomes and pathology results.
RESULTS: From 2005 to 2013, 65 patients who underwent ESD and 55 patients who underwent LC were included in this study. The two groups were similar in terms of sex (P = 0.41) and American Society of Anesthesiologist class (P = 0.58), although patients in the ESD group were slightly older (68.6 ± 9.4 vs 64.6 ± 9.9, P = 0.03). ESD could be accomplished with a shorter procedure time (113 ± 66 min vs 153 ± 43 min, P < 0.01) for lesions of comparable size (3.0 ± 1.2 cm vs 3.4 ± 1.4 cm, P = 0.22) and location (colon/rectum: 59/6 vs colon/rectum: 52/3, P = 0.43). ESD appeared to be associated with a lower short-term complication rate, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (10.8% vs 23.6%, P = 0.06). In the LC arm, a total of 22 complications occurred in 13 patients. A total of 7 complications occurred in the ESD arm, including 5 perforations and 2 episodes of bleeding. All perforations were observed during the procedure and were successfully managed by endoscopic clipping without emergency surgical intervention. Patients in the ESD arm had a faster recovery than patients in the LC arm, which included shorter time to resume normal diet (2 d vs 4 d, P = 0.01) and a shorter hospital stay (3 d vs 6 d, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: ESD showed better short-term clinical outcomes in this study. Further prospective randomized studies will be required to evaluate the efficacy and superiority of colorectal ESD over LC.
Core tip: This is the first study that compares endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) vs laparoscopic colorectal resection (LC) for endoscopically benign lesions that could not be adequately removed by conventional polypectomy. Case inclusion was based purely on the pre-operative/pre-procedure endoscopic findings. Although the difference in morbidities did not reach statistical significance, the absolute number of complications and the number of patients involved were much higher in the LC arm. The current study provided evidence that surgeons are capable of performing high-quality colorectal ESD procedures. We expect that the participation of the surgeons as well as the close collaboration with gastroenterologists will play a pivotal role in the formulation of a management plan for patients with early colorectal neoplasms.