Skip to main content
. 2015 May 5;4(1):18–29. doi: 10.1177/2050640615585470

Table 2.

Characteristics of patients treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)

Study Treatment Number of lesions Mean age in years ±  SD (range) Male/Female EUS reported (yes/no) Instruments Injection solution Mean follow-up months ± SD (range)
Iizuka ESD 44 69 ± 12 (34–86) 24/20 Yes Flex knife Sodium hyaluronate NA
EMR 83 66 ± 12 (32–91) 242/140 Yes NA
Kobayashi ESD 27 NA NA No NA NA NA
EMR 120 NA NA No NA
Nakae ESD 86 NA NA No NA NA NA
EMR 165 NA NA No NA NA
Saito ESD 145 64 ± 11 NA No B-knife, IT-knife Sodium hyaluronate, glycerol 20 ± 13 (6–61)
EMR 228 64 ± 4 NA No Sodium hyaluronate 26 ± 17 (6–68)
Tajika ESD 96 64.3 ± 9.2 49/36 No B-knife Sodium hyaluronate or saline 14.3 ± 13.4 (3–53)
EMR 116 59.9 ± 10.6 61/39 No Saline 53.8 ± 44.6 (3–191)
Terasaki ESD 91 66.7 ± 10.7 (42–86) 38/23 No Dual knife, Flex knife, Hook knife, SB knife Jr Sodium hyaluronate NA
EMR 178 67.9 ± 11.3 (39–89) 99/79 No Glycerol NA
Sudo ESD 167 NA NA No NA NA NA
EMR 509 NA NA No NA NA
Lee ESD 314 61 (25–85) NA No Flex knife, Hook knife Sodium hyaluronate, saline 17
EMR 209 63 (23–90) NA No Glycerol or saline 26
Coumaros ESD 46 NA NA No NA NA NA
EMR 66 NA NA No NA NA
Kang ESD 16 NA NA No NA NA 4.9 ± 3.7 (3–16)
EMR 50 NA NA No NA 6.1 ± 5.0 (3–24)
Kudo ESD 485 NA NA No NA NA NA
EMR 1437 NA NA No NA NA

EUS: endoscopic ultrasound.