scholarly journals Circumferential esophageal carcinoma with a localized muscle layer defect that caused perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takuto Hikichi ◽  
Jun Nakamura ◽  
Minami Hashimoto
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Carcinoma ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Layer Defect

A large muscle-layer defect of the stomach caused by endoscopic submucosal dissection is closed by using the endoloop-clips technique

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 1282-1283
Author(s):  
Motohiko Kato ◽  
Toshio Uraoka ◽  
Michiko Wada ◽  
Shigeo Banno ◽  
Satoshi Kinoshita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Layer Defect ◽  
Large Muscle

Retrograde endoscopic submucosal dissection for early thoracic esophageal carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuta Kobayashi ◽  
Kazuhiro Nishikawa ◽  
Tomofumi Akasaka ◽  
Seiya Kato ◽  
Takuya Hamakawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Carcinoma ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

Clinical benefit of the multibending endoscope for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Hamada ◽  
Yoshinori Horikawa ◽  
Yoshiki Shiwa ◽  
Kae Techigawara ◽  
Takayuki Nagahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Removal ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Operator Experience ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

Abstract Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ESD using a multibending endoscope to treat superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Methods Patients with a single early gastric cancer who met the absolute or expanded indications for ESD according to the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo ESD using a conventional endoscope (C-ESD) or a multibending endoscope (M-ESD). Randomization was stratified by ESD operator experience and tumor location. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time, calculated as the time from the start of submucosal injection to complete removal of the tumor. Results 60 patients were analyzed (30 C-ESD, 30 M-ESD). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) ESD procedure times for M-ESD and C-ESD were 34.6 (SD 17.2) and 47.2 (SD 26.7) minutes, respectively (P = 0.03). Muscle layer damage occurred significantly less frequently with M-ESD (0.2 [SD 0.7] vs. 0.7 [SD 1.0]; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in procedure time or damage to muscle layers for tumors located in the lower third of the stomach. Conclusions ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with the multibending endoscope and fewer muscles were damaged. We recommend multibending endoscopy for ESD in the upper and middle thirds of the stomach to reduce procedure time and incidence of complications.

The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for identifying stomach neoplasm before endoscopic submucosal dissection.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 22-22
Author(s):  
Pil Hun Song ◽  
Hyun Sung ◽  
Jeonghun Lee ◽  
Won Jae Yoon ◽  
You Sun Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lymph Node ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasonography ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Stomach Neoplasm ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
Lymphatic Invasion ◽  
Submucosal Layer ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

22 Background: The treatment of stomach neoplasm was determined by the identification on of invasion extent and perigastric lymph node through endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). In this study, we investigated diagnostic accuracy of EUS examination before endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to both EUS and ESD for stomach neoplasms that were performed at Seoul Paik Hospital between January 2006 and July 2015. We compared the accuracy of EUS according to the location of lesion, tumor size and ulcer presence or absence on lesion. Results: 49 patients were enrolled in this study; their mean age was 64.14 ± 11.33 years. There were 40 male (81.6%) and 9 female (18.4%) patients. The cases of confined to the mucosa on pathology finding were 41 (83.6%) and involved to submucosal layer(sm) 1 were 3 (6.1%) and sm2 were 2 (4%) and sm3 were 1 (2%) and proper muscle layer were 2 (4%). The cases of lymphatic invasion were 2 (4%). The sensitivity and accuracy of antrum were 91.6 % (95% CI: 0.81-1.03) and 83.3 % (95% CI: 0.70-0.97), body of stomach were 92.3 % (CI: 0.78-1.07) and 83.3% (CI: 0.66-1.00), respectively. Whether lesions were no significant differences in any location. The tumor size was divided by smaller than 20 mm group, 20-30 mm group and more than 30 mm group. The smaller than 20 mm group, 20-30 mm group and more than 30 mm group were 36, 9, 2 patients. The remaining 2 patients were not described. The sensitivity and accuracy of smaller than 20 mm group were 96.6 % (95% CI: 0.90-1.03) and 83.3 % (CI: 0.71-0.95) and 2-30 mm group were 66.7 % (CI: 0.29-1.04) and 77.8 % (CI: 0.51-1.04), respectively. All patients were divided by ulcer presence or not. 27 patients were ulcer presence and 22 patients were not. The sensitivity and accuracy of ulcer presence group were 77.3 % (CI : 0.60-0.95) and 74 % (CI : 0.57-0.90), ulcer absence group were 95 % (CI : 0.85-1.04) and 91 % (CI : 0.79-1.02). Conclusions: The EUS for stomach neoplasm was reliable of lesion without ulcerous finding, smaller than 20 mm in diameter and irrespective of stomach neoplasm location.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document