| 1 | Management of a large mucosal defect after duodenal endoscopic resection显示文摘Duodenal endoscopic resection is the most difficult type of endoscopic treatment in the gastrointestinal tract(GI) and is technically challenging because of anatomical specificities. In addition to these technical difficulties, this procedure is associated with a significantly higher rate of complication than endoscopic treatment in other parts of the GI tract. Postoperative delayed perforation and bleeding are hazardous complications, and emergency surgical intervention is sometimes required. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to establish a management protocol for preventing serious complications. For instance, the prophylactic closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic resection may reduce the risk of hazardous complications. However, the size of mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD) is relatively large compared with the size after endoscopic mucosal resection, making it impossible to achieve complete closure using only conventional clips. The over-the-scope clip and polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin gel make it possible to close large mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. In addition to the combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection holds therapeutic potential for difficult duodenal lesions and may overcome the disadvantages of endoscopic resection in the near future. This review aims to summarize the complications and closure techniques of large mucosal defects and to highlight some directions for management after duodenal endoscopic treatment. | Shintaro Fujihara Hirohito Mori Hideki Kobara Noriko Nishiyama Tae Matsunaga Maki Ayaki Tatsuo Yachida Tsutomu Masaki | 2016 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2016，22，29： | 10 |
| 2 | Feasibility study on expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection of intramucosal poorly differentiated early gastric cancer显示文摘AIM: To identify clinicopathological factors predictive of lymph node metastasis(LNM) in intramucosal poorly differentiated early gastric cancer(EGC), and further to expand the possibility of using endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD) for the treatment of intramucosal poorly differentiated EGC.METHODS: Data for 81 surgically treated patients with intramucosal poorly differentiated EGC were collected, and the association between the clinicopathological factors and the presence of LNM was retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) were calculated. Several clinicopathologic factors were investigated to identify predictive factors for lymph nodes metastasis, including gender, age, family history of gastric cancer, number of tumors, tumor location, ulceration, tumor size, macroscopic type, lymphatic vessel involvement, and signet-ring-cell component.RESULTS: Tumor size(OR = 7.273, 95%CI: 1.246-29.918, P = 0.042), lymphatic vessel involvement(OR = 42.219, 95%CI: 1.923-97.052, P = 0.018) and signet-ring-cell component(OR = 17.513, 95%CI: 1.647-77.469, P = 0.034) that were significantly associated with LNM by univariate analysis, were found to be significant and independent risk factors for LNM by multivariate analysis. However, gender, age, family history of gastric cancer, number, location, ulceration and macroscopic type of tumor were found not to be associated with LNM. Of these 81 patients diagnosed with intramucosal poorly differentiated EGC, 7(8.6%) had LNM. The LNM rates were 9.1%, 22.2% and 57.1%, respectively, in cases with one, two and three of the risk factors. There was no LNM in 54 patients without the three risk clinicopathological factors.CONCLUSION: Tumor size, lymphatic vessel involvement and signet-ring-cell component are independently associated with the presence of LNM in intramucosal poorly differentiated EGC. Thus, these three risk factors may be used as a simple criterion to expand the possibility of using ESD for the treatment of intramucosal poorly differentiated EGC. | Hua Li Zhi-Bin Huo Shu-Bo Chen Hui Li Dian-Chao Wu Tong-Shan Zhai Qi-Hai Xiao Shu-Xia Wang Li-Li Zhang | 2016 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2016，22，29： | 3 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员