Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 10, 2015; 7(14): 1114-1128
Published online Oct 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1114
Published online Oct 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1114
Device | Mucosal incision | Submucosal dissection | Hemostasis |
FlushKnifeBT with VIO 300D (at our institution) | Endocut I, effect 2, duration 3, interval 3 | Forced coag, effect 2, 40-50 W Swift coag, effect 2, 40-50 W | Forced coag, effect 2, 40-50 W Swift coag, effect 2, 40-50 W |
with ICC 200 (at our institution) | Endocut, effect 2-3, 80-120 W | Forced coag, 40-50 W Endocut, effect 2-3, 80-120 W | Forced coag, 40-50 W |
DualKnife with VIO 300D[49] | Dry cut, effect 2, 30 W | Swift coag, effect 4, 30 W | Swift coag, effect 4, 30 W |
with ESG-100[59] | Pulse-cut-slow, 50 W | Forced coag, effect 2 | Forced coag, effect 2 |
Hemostatic forceps | |||
FD-410LR with VIO 300D[11] | Soft coag, effect 5, 50 W | ||
with ICC 200 (at our institution) | Soft coag, 80 W | ||
with ESG-100[59] | Soft coag, 80 W | ||
FD-411QR with VIO 300D (at our institution) | Soft coag, effect 6, 80-100 W |
Ref. | Year | Country | Studydesign | No. ofcases | Tumorsize(mm) | En blocresectionrate (%) | Completeen blocresectionrate (%) | Perforation(%) | Bleeding (%) |
Fujishiro et al[69] | 2007 | Japan | S, R | 200 | 29.9 | 91.5 | 70.5 | 6 | 1 |
Tamegai et al[70] | 2007 | Japan | S, R | 71 | 32.7 | 98.6 | 95.6 | 1.4 | |
Hurlstome et al[29] | 2007 | United Kingdom | S, R | 42 | 78.6 | 73.8 | 2.4 | 11.9 | |
Taku et al[8] | 2007 | Japan | M, R | 43 | 14 | ||||
Zhou et al[9] | 2009 | China | S, R | 74 | 32.6 | 93.2 | 89.2 | 8.1 | 1.3 |
Iizuka et al[71] | 2009 | Japan | S, R | 38 | 39 | 61 | 58 | 8 | |
Isomoto et al[64] | 2009 | Japan | S, R | 292 | 26.8 | 90.1 | 79.8 | 8.2 | 0.7 |
Hotta et al[72] | 2010 | Japan | S, R | 120 | 35 | 93.3 | 85 | 7.5 | |
Niimi et al[73] | 2010 | Japan | S, R | 310 | 28.9 | 90.3 | 74.5 | 4.8 | 1.6 |
Matsumoto et al[65] | 2010 | Japan | S, R | 203 | 32.4 | 85.7 | 6.9 | ||
Yoshida et al[74] | 2010 | Japan | S, R | 250 | 29.1 | 86.8 | 81.2 | 6 | 2.4 |
Tanaka et al[75] | 2010 | Japan | M, R | 8303 | 83.8 | 4.8 | 1.6 | ||
Oka et al[76] | 2010 | Japan | M, R | 688 | 3.3 | 1.7 | |||
Saito et al[77] | 2010 | Japan | M, P | 1111 | 35 | 88 | 4.9 | 1.5 | |
Kim et al[10] | 2011 | South Korea | S, R | 108 | 27.6 | 78.7 | 20.4 | ||
Shono et al[78] | 2011 | Japan | S, R | 137 | 29.2 | 89.1 | 85.4 | 3.6 | |
Uraoka et al[79] | 2011 | Japan | S, R | 202 | 39.9 | 91.6 | 2.5 | 0.5 | |
Takeuchi et al[80] | 2012 | Japan | S, R | 348 | 30 | 91.1 | 2.3 | 4.6 | |
Probst et al[62] | 2012 | Germany | S, R | 82 | 45.5 | 81.6 | 69.7 | 1.9 | 7.9 |
Toyonaga et al[12] | 2012 | Japan | S, R | 1143 | 99.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | ||
Homma et al[54] | 2012 | Japan | M, R | 102 | 32.4 | 100 | 1 | ||
Tseng et al[81] | 2013 | Taiwan | S, R | 92 | 37.2 | 90.2 | 89.1 | 12 | 0 |
Thorlacius et al[82] | 2013 | Sweden | S, R | 29 | 26 | 72 | 69 | 6.9 | 3.4 |
Hülagü et al[83] | 2013 | Turkey | S, R | 44 | 30 | 77.3 | 4.5 | 9.1 | |
Hsu et al[84] | 2013 | Taiwan | S, R | 50 | 33 | 86 | 82 | 6 | 0 |
Saito et al[52] | 2013 | Japan | S, R | 806 | 37 | 90 | 2.8 | 1.9 | |
Lee et al[85] | 2013 | South Korea | S, R | 1000 | 24.1 | 97.5 | 5.3 | 0.4 | |
Nakajima et al[86] | 2013 | Japan | M, P | 816 | 94.5 | 2 | 2.2 | ||
Hori et al[87] | 2014 | Japan | S, P | 247 | 35 | 93.1 | 92.3 | 2 | 0.4 |
Bialek et al[88] | 2014 | Poland | S, R | 37 | 37 | 86.5 | 81.1 | 0 | 5.7 |
Nawata et al[56] | 2014 | Japan | S, R | 150 | 98.6 | 91.3 | 0 | 0 | |
Yamamoto et al[14] | 2015 | Japan | S, R | 119 | 32.5 | 97.5 | 90.8 | 0.8 | 1.7 |
Ref. | Study design | Recurrence rate after EMR(En bloc resection with EMR)(Tumor size with EMR) | Recurrence rate after ESD(En bloc resection with ESD)(Tumor size with ESD) | P value |
Saito et al[92] | S, R | 14.0%; 33/228 | 2%; 3/145 | P < 0.0001 |
(33%; 74/228) | (84%; 122/145) | P < 0.0001 | ||
(28 ± 8 mm) | (37 ± 14 mm) | P = 0.0006 | ||
Tajika et al[93] | S, R | 15.4%; 16/104 | 1.2%; 1/85 | P = 0.002 |
(48.1%; 50/104) | (83.5%; 71/85) | P < 0.001 | ||
(25.5 ± 6.8 mm) | (31.6 ± 9.0 mm) | P < 0.001 | ||
Terasaki et al[94] | S, R | 8.0%; 14/176 | 0%; 0/56 | |
(39.3%; 70/178) | ||||
Lee et al[95] | S, R | 25.7%; 29/113 | 0.8%; 2/257 | P < 0.001 |
(42.9%; 60/140) | (92.7%; 291/314) | P < 0.001 | ||
(21.7 ± 3.5 mm) | (28.9 ± 12.7 mm) | P < 0.001 | ||
Oka et al[96] | M, P | 6.8%; 55/808 | 1.4%; 10/716 | P < 0.01 |
(53.2%; 430/808) | (95.0%; 680/716) | |||
(32.8 ± 15.7 mm) | (39.6 ± 18.6 mm) | P < 0.01 |
- Citation: Yamamoto K, Michida T, Nishida T, Hayashi S, Naito M, Ito T. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7(14): 1114-1128
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v7/i14/1114.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i14.1114