Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: A systematic review

Ceglie, Antonella De; Hassan, Cesare; Mangiavillano, Benedetto; Matsuda, Takahisa; Saito, Yutaka; Ridola, Lorenzo; Bhandari, Pradeep; Boeri, Federica; Conio, Mássimo

doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.06.008

Cited by 151 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 103 publications

(127 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore ESD is more time consuming and requires a high level of expertise. [10][11][12][13][14] Not all adenomatous lesions in the gastrointestinal tract are amenable to EMR or ESD. In particular nonlifting lesions may pose a problem to EMR and ESD.…”

Section: -8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) of colorectal neoplasms with the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD): Clinical experience from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland

Aepli

Criblez

Baumeler

et al. 2017

United European Gastroenterology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) by the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) has recently been introduced as a method to allow resection of certain lesions such as adenomatous polyps that would not be resectable by standard polypectomy techniques. We report our clinical experience with FTRD procedures, assessing technical success, completeness of resection (R0 status), rate of histologically proven FTR and safety. Patients and methods:We conducted a retrospective analysis of 33 consecutive patients with colonic polyps treated with FTRD from May 2015 to November 2016. Results: Indications mainly were adenoma recurrence or residual adenoma with nonlifting sign after previous polypectomy. In the 31 cases amenable to EFTR, resection was en bloc and histologically complete (R0) in 87.9% (29/33) of patients. Histologically confirmed complete full thickness resection (FTR) was achieved in 80.6% (25/31). Three post-procedure bleedings and one perforation were seen. Conclusion: FTRD offers an additional endoscopic approach to treat nonlifting colorectal lesions. EFTR by FTRD appears to be feasible and efficacious in the resection of benign neoplasms of up to 30 mm in diameter and may be an alternative to surgery in selected patients. Given a significant rate of complications, safety is a concern and needs to be assessed in larger prospective studies.

show abstract

Section: -8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) of colorectal neoplasms with the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD): Clinical experience from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland

Aepli

Criblez

Baumeler

et al. 2017

United European Gastroenterology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EMR-CI consists in an EMR following circumferential mucosal incision without partial submucosal dissection, avoiding snare slippage [1, 3, 5]. For large colorectal lesions (>20 mm), ESD revealed superior to EMR-CI or ESD-H due to the higher complete resection rate [2, 4, 5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Techniques combining ESD and EMR have been developed to minimize ESD limitations, including EMR with circumferential incision (EMR-CI) and ESD-hybrid (ESD-H) [1, 3-5]. EMR-CI consists in an EMR following circumferential mucosal incision without partial submucosal dissection, avoiding snare slippage [1, 3, 5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrariwise, ESD has a higher en-bloc resection, complete resection, and lower local recurrence rates [2, 3]. However, several drawbacks, including a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, long learning curve, and significant risk of complications, limit its colorectal use [1, 3, 4]. Currently, ESD has been proposed for hard-to-resect lesions, such as LST-NG or nonlifting lesions, that otherwise require surgical resection [1, 2, 4, 5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations