Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 2795 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 115-121

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor


1 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
2 Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jun Lee
Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju
Republic of Korea
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_440_17

Rights and Permissions

Background/Aim: To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors, including large adenoma, cancer, and subepithelial tumors (SET). Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 71 patients with rectal tumors who were treated with ESD (48 patients) or TEM (23 patients) from January 2013 to December 2015. The patient group comprised 56 patients with epithelial tumors and 15 patients with SET. Treatment efficacy such as en bloc resection, procedure time, local recurrence, hospital stay, additional procedure rate, and safety between the treatment groups were evaluated and analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in tumor size, location, macroscopic appearance, and histological depth between ESD and TEM groups. For ESD compared to TEM in rectal epithelial tumors, en bloc resection rates were 95% vs. 93.7% and R0 resection rates were 92.5% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.617); in rectal SET, en bloc resection rates were 100% vs. 100% and R0 resection rates were 87% vs. 85% (P = 0.91). The procedure time was 71.5 ± 51.3 min vs. 105.6 ± 28.2 min (P = 0.016) for epithelial tumors and 32.13 ± 13.4 min vs. 80.71 ± 18.35 min (P = 0.00) for SET, respectively. Hospital stay was 4.3 ± 1.2 days vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 days (P = 0.001) for epithelial tumors and 4.1 ± 4.1 days vs. 5.5 ± 2 days (P = 0.42) for rectal SET, respectively. There were no significant differences between recurrence rates, additional procedure rates, and complications in the two groups. Conclusions: ESD and TEM are both effective and safe for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors and SET because of favorable R0 resection rates and recurrence rates. However, the ESD group showed shorter procedure times and hospital stays than the TEM group. Therefore, ESD should be considered more preferentially than TEM in the treatment of large rectal epithelial tumors and SET.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1611    
    Printed39    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded301    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal