Comparison of the efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and radical surgery for large colorectal laterally spreading tumors larger than 5 cm in diameter.
10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2018.09.013
- Author:
Meili XU
1
;
Yonghong GUO
1
;
Tianying DUAN
2
;
Yuyong TAN
2
;
Liang LÜ
2
;
Deliang LIU
2
Author Information
1. Department of Gerontology, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China.
2. Department of Gastroenterology, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Colorectal Neoplasms;
pathology;
surgery;
Dissection;
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection;
standards;
Humans;
Intestinal Mucosa;
pathology;
surgery;
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local;
pathology;
surgery;
Retrospective Studies;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Journal of Central South University(Medical Sciences)
2018;43(9):1014-1019
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
To compare the safety and efficacy between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and radical surgery (RS) for the treatment of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LST) larger than 50 mm in diameter.
Methods: From January 2011 to January 2016, a total of 82 patients were diagnosed as large LST without deep submucosal invasion (T1 SM2, ≥1 000 µm) in the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. Among them, 52 patients were treated by ESD and the other 30 patients were treated by RS [laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC)/open colectomy (OC)]. The clinic data were retrospectively analyzed and the en-bloc resection rate, en-bloc R0 resection rate, local recurrence, complication, procedure time and hospital stay were collected and analyzed.
Results: The lesion sizes were (5.80±1.20) cm and (5.53±0.69) cm in diameter for ESD and RS groups, respectively (P>0.05). En-bloc resection rates, en-bloc R0 resection rates and recurrence rates showed no significant difference between the ESD group and RS group (P>0.05). Complication rate of the ESD group (7.69%, 4/52) was much lower than that in the RS group (33.33%, 10/30; P<0.01). The ESD group also had a shorter hospital stay and operation time than the RS group (P<0.05).
Conclusion: ESD appears to be a safe, minimal invasive and effective strategy for treating large LST and it is obviously better than RS in the aspects of hospital stay, operation time and short-term complication.
