ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia at anastomotic sites: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for lesions involving the anastomosis after upper gastrointestinal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Red dichromatic imaging reduces bleeding and hematoma during submucosal injection in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for metachronous early cancer or precancerous lesions emerging at the anastomotic site after curative surgical resection of colorectal cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- EMR/ESD: Techniques, Complications, and Evidence.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetachronous colorectal lesions sometimes occur at anastomotic sites following colorectal surgery, which increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer. However, these lesions are difficult to treat even with minimally invasive methods such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for colorectal lesions at anastomotic sites following colorectal surgery.
methodsWe retrospectively investigated 11 patients with post-surgical colorectal lesions at anastomotic sites who later underwent ESD from May 2010 to April 2019 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. We examined the patients' background (tumor location, macroscopic type, tumor size, histological type, and depth of invasion) and treatment outcomes (procedure duration, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events).
resultsThe patients' mean age was 66 years. There were two lesions in the transverse colon, six in the rectum, one in the anal canal, and two in the ileal pouch. The median tumor size was 25 mm. The macroscopic types were the protruded type (1 lesion) and the flat or depressed type (10 lesions). The pathological diagnoses were adenoma (4 lesions), intramucosal cancer (corresponding to high-grade dysplasia) (6 lesions), and muscularis propria cancer (1 lesion). The median procedure duration was 50 min; en bloc resection rate was 88.9% and R0 resection rate was 66.7%. The only adverse event was delayed post-ESD bleeding.
conclusionsA high en bloc resection rate without perforation was achieved with ESD for lesions at anastomotic sites. Although ESD for lesions at anastomotic sites is a technically challenging procedure because of severe submucosal fibrosis, this approach could prevent the need for repeated surgical resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.