Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (1): 171-176. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.01.029

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparative treatment analysis of upper gastroenterology submucosal tumors originating from muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation

Xue-li TIAN,Yong-hui HUANG(),Wei YAO,Yuan LI,Jing-jing LU   

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2018-07-25 Online:2019-02-18 Published:2019-02-26
  • Contact: Yong-hui HUANG E-mail:huangyonghui@medmail.com.cn
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(81470905)

RICH HTML

 13   

PDF (PC)

194

Abstract:

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) for upper gastroenterology submucosal tumors (SMT) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. Methods: Clinicopathological and endoscopic data of 42 cases with upper gastroenterology tumors originating from the MP layer who were treated with STER (n=28) or ESE (n=14) between April 2013 and December 2016 in Peking University Third Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The treatment and complications of the two groups were compared. Results: In the study, 42 cases were all resected by therapeutic endoscopy successfully.There was no significant difference (STER vs. ESE) in gender, age, mean tumor size [1.5 (1.0-6.0) cm vs. 1.3 (0.5-2.0) cm,P=0.056]. STER was superior to ESE with reduced sutured time [3.5 (1.0-11.0) min vs. 8.0 (2.0-33.0) min, P=0.006], but more resection time [46.5 (11.0-163.0) min vs.19.5 (6.0-56.0) min, P=0.007]. There was statistical difference between the two groups in resection time or sutured time, but no significant difference (STER vs. ESE) in total operative time [52.0 (14.0-167.0) min vs. 31.5 (10.0-88.0) min, P=0.080]. En bloc resection rates (92.9% vs. 85.7%), hospital stay duration and complications (10.7 vs. 0.0) were similar in the STER and ESE groups. One case developed mediastinal emphysema and 2 pneumonia after operation in STER group, and all of them recovered uneventfully after conservative treatments; There were no complications in the ESE group. After operation, 28 cases of leiomyoma and 14 cases of stromal tumor were diagnosed by routine pathological and immunohistochemical staining. Among them, 6 cases of stromal tumors in group STER were all extremely low risk, 4 cases of stromal tumors in group ESE were extremely low risk, 4 cases of stromal tumors in group ESE were medium risk (the size of the lesion was about 1.0-2.0 cm, and mitotic figures counted (6-8)/50 high power field). The median follow-up time of all the patients was 46.5 (24-60) months, and the shortest follow-up time for medium risk stromal tumors was 32 months. No residual tumor, recurrence and implantation in the tunnel were observed. Conclusion: STER or ESE can be used as an effective and safe option for treatment of submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria of the upper digestive tract. Compared with STER, ESE had shorter resection time but longer wound closure time. There was no significant difference in total operation time.

Key words: Upper gastroenterology submucosal neoplasms, Endoscopes, Comparative study, Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, Endoscopic submucosal excavation

CLC Number: 

  • R735

Figure 1

Endoscopic submucosal excavation A, Endoscopic view of the submucosal tumor in the gastric fundus. B, Endoscopic ultrasound showed the tumor originating from the muscularis propria. C, Circumferential markings of the lesion. D, A fluid cushion created by a submucosal injection. E, The mucosal incision along the marking points. F, Complete dissection of tumor. G, Closure of tunnel entry with clips. H, tumor in vitro."

Figure 2

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection A, Endoscopic view of the submucosal tumor in the esophagus. B, Endoscopic ultrasound view of the same lesion, showing the tumor originating from the muscularis propria. C, An longitudinal mucosal incision 5 cm proximal to the submucosal tumor. D, Endoscopic dissection to create a submucosal tunnel to the lesion. E, The entire exposed tumor. F, Tunnel after en bloc resection of the tumor. G, Closure of tunnel entry with clips. H, The resected specimen."

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STER and ESE groups"

Items STER (n=28) ESE (n=14) P value
Patients 27 14 -
Gender, n (%)
Male 11 (40.7) 6 (42.9) 1.000
Female 16 (59.3) 8 (57.1)
Age/years, x?±s 50.1 (9.7) 56.3 (14.3) 0.105
Tumor size/cm, median (range) 1.5 (1.0-6.0) 1.3 (0.5-2.0) 0.056
Pathological diagnosis, n (%)
Leiomyoma 22 (78.6) 6 (42.9) 0.021
GIST 6 (21.4) 8 (57.1)

Table 2

Comparison of treatment effectiveness between STER and ESE groups"

Items STER (n=28) ESE (n=14) P value
Resection time/min, median(range) 46.5 (11.0-163.0) 19.5 (6.0-56.0) 0.007
Suture time/min, median (range) 3.5 (1.0-11.0) 8.0 (2.0-33.0) 0.006
Total operation time/min, median (range) 52.0 (14.0-167.0) 31.5 (10.0-88.0) 0.080
En bloc resection, n (%) 26 (92.9) 12 (85.7) 0.457
Complete resection, n (%) 28 (100) 14 (100) -
Residual, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Recurrence, n (%) 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Follow up-time/months, median (range) 49.5 (24-60) 43.5 (24-58) 0.126

Table 3

Comparison of treatment safety between STER and ESE groups"

Items STER (n=28) ESE (n=14) P value
Complications, n (%) 3 (10.7) 0 (0) 0.539
Gas-related 1 (3.6) 0 -
Infection 2 (7.1) 0 -
Bleeding 0 0 -
Others 0 0 -
Hospital stay duration/d, median (range) 7 (4-15) 7 (5-11) 0.420
[1] 周平红, 姚礼庆, 徐美东 , 等. 消化道黏膜下肿瘤的内镜黏膜下挖除术治疗[J]. 中国医疗器械信息, 2008,14(10):3-5.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6586.2008.10.002
[2] Xu MD, Cai MY, Zhou PH ,et a1. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: a new technique for treating upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2012,75(1):195-199.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.018 pmid: 22056087
[3] Lu J, Jiao T, Zheng M , et al. Endoscopic resection of submucosal tumors in muscularis propria: the choice between direct excavation and tunneling resection[J]. Surg Endosc, 2014,28(12):3401-3407.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3610-y pmid: 24986008
[4] 李江虹, 刘枫施, 施新岗 , 等. 内镜黏膜下肿物挖除术及内镜经黏膜下隧道肿瘤切除术治疗胃食管连接处固有肌层肿瘤的对比分析[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2017,34(3):173-176.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2017.03.006
[5] Du C, Chai N, Linghu E , et al. Treatment of cardial submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation[J]. Surg Endosc, 2018,32(11):4543-4551.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6206-0 pmid: 29766300
[6] Koo DH, Ryu MH, Kim KM . Asian consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor[J]. Cancer Res Treat, 2016,48(4):1155-1166.
doi: 10.4143/crt.2016.187 pmid: 27384163
[7] Koga T, Hirayama Y, Yoshiya S , et al. Necessity for resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors </= 20mm[J]. Anticancer Res, 2015,35(4):2341-2344.
[8] Abe N, Takeuchi H, Ohki A , et al. Comparison between endoscopic and laparoscopic removal of gastric submucosal tumor[J]. Dig Endosc, 2018,30(Suppl 1):7-16.
doi: 10.1111/den.2018.30.issue-S1
[9] Goto O, Takeuchi H, Kitagawa Y , et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and related rechniques as precursors of “new notes” resection methods for gastric neoplasms[J]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, 2016,26(2):313-322.
doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2015.12.006 pmid: 27036900
[10] Chen T, Lin ZW, Zhang YQ , et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection vs. thoracoscopic enucleation for large submucosal tumors in the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2017,225(6):806-816.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.09.002 pmid: 28923691
[11] Zhang Y, Ye LP, Mao XL . Endoscopic treatments for small gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria layer[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015,21(32):9503-9511.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i32.9503 pmid: 26327758
[12] Wong VWY, Goto O, Gregersen H , et al. Endoscopic treatment of subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract[J]. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol, 2017,15(4):603-617.
doi: 10.1007/s11938-017-0152-0 pmid: 29030800
[13] Al-Bawardy B, Rajan E, Wong Kee Song LM . Over-the-scope clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection of epithelial and subepithelial GI lesions[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2017,85(5):1087-1092.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.08.019 pmid: 27569858
[14] Fernández JÁ, Gómez-Ruiz ÁJ, Olivares V , et al. Clinical and pathological features of “small” GIST (≤2 cm). What is their prognostic value[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2018,44(5):580-586.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.087 pmid: 29478742
[1] YIN Zhuo, YANG Jin-Rui, WANG Zhao, WEI Yong-Bao, YAN Bin, ZHOU Ke-Qin. Application of scrotoscope in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular and epididymal diseases [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(4): 648-652.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(4): 456 -458 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 135 -140 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 158 -161 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 217 -220 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 52 -55 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 109 -111 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(3): 297 -301 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 505 -515 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 599 -601 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(5): 516 -520 .
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd