Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to clarify the safety of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) during the era of health insurance coverage starting from April 2012 in Japan.
Methods
Between April 2012 and May 2016, ESD was applied to 398 lesions in 373 patients. Risk factors for serious complications of colorectal ESD, perforation and post-ESD bleeding, were evaluated focusing on the resected specimen size, location, growth pattern, invasion depth, histopathology, postoperative clipping, and procedure time. In addition, the relationship between serious complications and patients' background characteristics was analyzed.
Results
Among 373 patients, perforation occurred in 12 patients and post-ESD bleeding in 19 patients. A univariate analysis showed that the risk factors for perforation were the lesion size, the resected specimen size, and a long operation time. A multivariate analysis showed that a long operation time was a risk factor for perforation during colorectal ESD. A univariate analysis indicated that significant risk factors for postoperative bleeding were a long operation time, rectal lesion, and cancer. All patients with serious complications were treated by an endoscopic procedure without blood transfusion or the need to convert to open surgery.
Conclusion
The present study suggests that colorectal ESD may be accepted with relative safety in Japan as a common therapeutic approach for early colorectal cancer.
Keywords: serious complications, clip, colorectal cancer, multivariate analysis
Introduction
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions has become widely accepted as a standard procedure (1-7). EMR for colorectal lesions exceeding 20 mm in diameter sometimes results in piecemeal resection (8-11). Because of high recurrence rates (around 5-20%) after piecemeal resection (12-17), en-bloc resection is required for curative treatment with an accurate histopathological evaluation (8-11). This limitation of EMR has been overcome by the development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the stomach and colon (18-23). However, the technical difficulty of performing ESD for colorectal lesions, given the thin intestinal wall, can induce frequent complications, particularly perforation and postoperative delayed bleeding.
Since June 2009, colorectal ESD has been performed in Japan in accordance with the advanced medical treatment system approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Colorectal ESD was distinguished from gastric and esophageal ESD because of the associated high complication rates. In April 2012, however, colorectal ESD was included in health insurance coverage in Japan because of the accumulation of experience with a relatively low complication rate under advanced medical treatment systems (19,24). Since colorectal ESD was approved for health insurance coverage in April 2012, ESD for colorectal lesions has been applied more often in Japan.
The assessment and prediction of risks of complications after health insurance coverage in Japan may provide important, useful information for colorectal ESD. Several studies have assessed the risk factors for perforation during colorectal ESD and postoperative bleeding (25-32), but few have assessed the risk factors for complications after health insurance coverage started in Japan (24). The aim of the present study was to clarify the safety of colorectal ESD in Japan after April 2012.
Materials and Methods
Patients
Between April 2012 and May 2016, colorectal ESD was performed for 398 lesions in 381 patients in Saga Medical School and Saga-ken Medical Centre Koseikan: 250 lesions in Saga Medical School and 148 lesions in Saga-Ken Medical Centre Koseikan. All lesions were treated under the Japanese national health insurance system. The indications for ESD for colorectal lesions were identical to those established in previous reports from other institutions (1,33,34) with Japanese health insurance. The pre-operation indications for ESD were the presence of colorectal neoplasms with a tumor size of 2-5 cm. Indications were determined with magnifying endoscopy and included the following characteristics:
・Large (>20 mm in diameter) lesions (possibly indicated for endoscopic treatment but difficult to treat with en-bloc resection using the snare device), including lesions suspected of having submucosal invasion and/or exhibiting the Vi pit pattern with magnifying endoscopy
・Mucosal lesions with fibrosis
・Local residual early cancer after endoscopic resection
・Sporadic localized tumor with chronic inflammation, such as ulcerative colitis
ESD procedures
ESD was performed using the following procedures, as previously described (19,21): Hypertonic sodium epinephrine and/or sodium hyaluronate were injected into the submucosal layer around the lesion to raise the mucosal layer. An incision into the mucosa was performed outside the target lesion. The subsequent submucosal dissection of the lesion was performed with a Dual Knife (Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) and/or a Flush Knife-BT (ball tip; Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). Regarding anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs, their continued use or cancellation was decided according to the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) guidelines (35,36).
Perforation during ESD and postoperative bleeding
Perforation was diagnosed endoscopically and/or by the presence of free air on plain radiography and/or computed tomography (CT) just after ESD. Perforations detected during the ESD procedure were immediately closed with a metal clip (37), and the patient was given antibiotics. Postoperative bleeding was defined as clinical evidence of bleeding after ESD requiring special measures for hemostasis and/or decreases in the hemoglobin level by ≥2.0 g/dL in comparison with the last preoperative level (38). Bleeding during the ESD procedure was not considered postoperative bleeding.
Data analyses
The clinical record, endoscopic images, endoscopic report, and histopathological report were reviewed for all patients. Patients with perforation or postoperative bleeding were retrospectively evaluated regarding the following factors: i) patient-related factors, including sex, age and daily usage of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs; ii) tumor- and treatment-related factors, including the location of the tumor, the size of the resected specimens, and the operation time; iii) co-morbidities, including cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic liver damage, chronic renal failure, hyperuricemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus.
Data were analyzed using the χ2 test followed by a multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effects of independent variables with adjustments for the effects of each of the other factors with the IBM SPSS Statistic software program (International Business Machines, Armonk, USA). Differences of p<0.05 were considered significant.
Results
The characteristics of all patients who underwent ESD for colorectal lesions under the Japan national health insurance system during 2012-2016 were as follows (Table 1): mean age 68.7±9.9 years (range 25-90 years); resected specimen size 35.0±13.6 mm (range 23-65 mm); and operation time 74.0±56.2 min (range 20- 427 min). Perforation during ESD occurred in 12 of the 398 patients (3.0%). All patients with perforation were treated by endoscopic clipping without the need for laparotomy. The perforation rate was not affected by age, sex, or the use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs.
Table 1.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Patient-related Factors for Perforation during Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Characteristics | Total | Perforation (+) | Perforation (-) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 12 (3%) | 386 (97%) | |
| Age (years; mean±SD) | 68.7±9.9 | 70.8±8.1 | 68.6±10 | N.S. |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 249 | 5 (2.0%) | 244 (98.0%) | N.S. |
| Female | 149 | 7 (4.7%) | 142 (95.3%) | |
| Anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs | ||||
| (+) | 50 | 3 (6%) | 47 (94%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 348 | 9 (2.6%) | 339 (97.4%) |
SD: standard deviation, N.S.: not significant
Tumor and treatment-related factors of perforation during ESD are shown in Table 2. A univariate analysis indicated that both the lesion size (28.3 vs. 38.4 mm, p<0.05) and the resected specimen size (34.8 vs. 44.5 mm, p<0.05) were significantly larger in patients with perforation. The operation time for ESD was significantly longer in patients with perforation (71.4 vs. 159.2 min, p<0.05). The operation time included the time for intraoperative hemostasis and the time for clipping to close intraoperative perforation. The tumor location, invasion depth, histological type, and closure with a hemoclip were not risk factors for perforation during ESD. Table 3 indicates whether or not perforation during ESD was exacerbated by co-morbidities, including cerebral vessel disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic liver damage, chronic renal dysfunction, hyperuricemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. These co-morbidities were not risk factors for perforation during ESD. A multivariate logistic regression analysis in Table 4 revealed that a long operation time was an independent risk factor for perforation (p<0.001).
Table 2.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Tumor- and Treatment-related Factors for Perforation during Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Factors | Total | Perforation (+) | Perforation (-) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 12 | 387 | |
| Tumor location | ||||
| Colon | 290 | 10 (3.4%) | 280 (96.6%) | N.S. |
| Rectum | 108 | 2 (1.9%) | 106 (98.1%) | |
| Lesion size (mm) | 28.6±14.2 | 38.4±13.8 | 28.3±14.1 | <0.05 |
| Resected size (mm) | 35.0±13.6 | 44.5±15.2 | 34.8±13.5 | <0.05 |
| Operation time (min) | 74.0±56.2 | 159.2±119.8 | 71.4±51.2 | <0.05 |
| Invasion morphology | ||||
| Superficial | 328 | 8 (2.4%) | 320 (97.6%) | N.S. |
| Protruded | 69 | 4 (5.8%) | 65 (94.2%) | |
| Histological type | ||||
| Adenoma | 208 | 3 (1.4%) | 205 (98.6%) | N.S. |
| Cancer | 189 | 9 (4.8%) | 180 (95.2%) | |
| Closure with hemoclips | ||||
| Yes | 129 | 6 (4.7%) | 123 (95.3%) | N.S. |
| No | 269 | 6 (2.2%) | 263 (97.8%) |
N.S.: not significant
Table 3.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Co-morbidities in Patients with Perforation during Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Factors | Total | Perforation (+) | Perforation (-) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 12 | 387 | |
| Cerebral vessel diseases | ||||
| (+) | 30 | 0 | 30 (100%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 368 | 12 (3.3%) | 356 (96.7%) | |
| Ischemic heart disease | ||||
| (+) | 46 | 3 (6.5%) | 43 (93.5%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 352 | 9 (2.6%) | 343 (97.4%) | |
| Chronic liver damage | ||||
| (+) | 23 | 2 (8.7%) | 21 (91.3%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 375 | 10 (2.7%) | 365 (97.3%) | |
| Chronic renal dysfunction | ||||
| (+) | 14 | 2 (14.3%) | 12 (85.7%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 384 | 10 (2.6%) | 374 (97.4%) | |
| Hyperuricemia | ||||
| (+) | 31 | 2 (6.5%) | 29 (93.5%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 367 | 10 (2.7%) | 357 (97.3%) | |
| Hypertension | ||||
| (+) | 171 | 5 (2.9%) | 166 (97.1%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 227 | 7 (3.1%) | 220 (96.9%) | |
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||
| (+) | 51 | 2 (3.9%) | 49 (96.1%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 347 | 10 (2.9%) | 337 (97.1%) |
N.S.: not significant
Table 4.
Results of a Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Factors Associated with Perforation during Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Variable | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion size | - | N.S. | |
| Operation time | - | <0.001 | |
| Closure with hemoclip | 3.49 | 0.96-12.71 | 0.058 |
CI: confidence interval, N.S.: not significant
Post-ESD operative bleeding occurred in 19 of the 398 patients (4.8%). All cases of postoperative bleeding were successfully treated by an endoscopic procedure that entailed metal clipping and/or electrocoagulation. As indicated in Table 5, sex, age, and the use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs were not risk factors for post-ESD bleeding.
Table 5.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Patient-related Factors in Postoperative Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Factors | Total | Present | Absent | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 19 | 379 | |
| Age (years), mean±SD | 68.7±9.9 | 69.1±7.2 | 68.7±10.1 | N.S. |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 249 | 11 (4.4%) | 238 (95.6%) | N.S. |
| Female | 149 | 8 (5.4%) | 141 (94.6%) | N.S. |
| Anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs | ||||
| Yes | 50 | 2 (4%) | 48 (96%) | N.S. |
| No | 348 | 17 (4.9%) | 331 (95.1%) | N.S. |
SD: standard deviation, N.S.: not significant
Table 6 shows the tumor- and treatment-related factors of postoperative bleeding associated with ESD. A univariate analysis indicated that the tumor location (colon 3.1% vs. rectum 9.3%, p<0.05), histological type (adenoma 1.9% vs. adenocarcinoma 7.9%, p<0.05), and closure with a hemoclip (“yes” 0.8% vs. “no” 6.7%, p<0.05) were significantly associated with post-ESD bleeding. A large lesion size (28.2 vs. 35.6 mm, p<0.05) and the long ESD operation time (71.6 vs. 123.0 min, p<0.05) were risk factors for post-ESD bleeding. Postoperative bleeding associated with ESD was influenced by neither the invasion depth nor the resected size. As indicated in Table 7, post-ESD bleeding was not affected by co-morbidities, including cerebral vessel diseases, ischemic heart disease, chronic liver damage, chronic renal dysfunction, hyperuricemia, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus, indicating that these co-morbidities were not risk factors for postoperative bleeding. As shown in Table 8, a multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a long ESD operation time, a rectal lesion, and histological malignancy were independent risk factors for post-ESD bleeding (p<0.05 for each).
Table 6.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Tumor- and Treatment-related Factors and Postoperative Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Factors | Total | Present | Absent | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 19 | 379 | |
| Tumor location | ||||
| Colon | 290 | 9 (3.1%) | 281 (96.9%) | <0.05 |
| Rectum | 108 | 10 (9.3%) | 98 (90.7%) | |
| Lesion size (mm) | 35.6±20.2 | 28.2±13.7 | <0.05 | |
| Resected size (mm) | 40.7±19.8 | 34.8±13.2 | N.S. | |
| Operation time (min) | 123.0±108.5 | 71.6±51.4 | <0.05 | |
| Invasion morphology | ||||
| Superficial | 328 | 13 (4.0%) | 315 (96%) | N.S. |
| Protruded | 69 | 6 (8.7%) | 63 (91.3%) | |
| Histological type | ||||
| Adenoma | 209 | 4 (1.9%) | 205 (98.1%) | <0.05 |
| Carcinoma | 189 | 15 (7.9%) | 174 (92.1%) | |
| Closure with hemoclips | ||||
| Yes | 129 | 1 (0.8%) | 128 (99.2%) | <0.05 |
| No | 269 | 18 (6.7%) | 251 (93.3%) |
N.S.: not significant
Table 7.
Results of a Univariate Analysis of Co-morbidities in Patients with Postoperative Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Co-morbidity | Total | Present | Absent | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 398 | 19 | 379 | |
| Cerebral vessel diseases | ||||
| (+) | 30 | 2 (6.7%) | 28 (93.3%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 368 | 17 (4.6%) | 351 (95.4%) | |
| Ischemic heart disease | ||||
| (+) | 46 | 2 (4.3%) | 44 (95.7%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 352 | 17 (4.8%) | 335 (95.2%) | |
| Chronic liver damage | ||||
| (+) | 23 | 3 (13%) | 20 (87%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 375 | 16 (4.3%) | 359 (95.7%) | |
| Chronic renal dysfunction | ||||
| (+) | 14 | 2 (14.3%) | 12 (85.7%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 384 | 17 (4.4%) | 367 (95.6%) | |
| Hyperuricemia | ||||
| (+) | 31 | 2 (6.5%) | 29 (93.5%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 367 | 17 (4.6%) | 350 (95.4%) | |
| Hypertension | ||||
| (+) | 171 | 8 (4.7%) | 163 (95.3%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 227 | 11 (4.8%) | 216 (95.2%) | |
| Diabetes mellitus | ||||
| (+) | 51 | 3 (5.9%) | 48 (94.1%) | N.S. |
| (-) | 347 | 16 (4.6%) | 331 (95.4%) |
N.S.: not significant
Table 8.
Results of a Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Factors Associated Postoperative Bleeding after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
| Variable | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time | - | 0.006 | |
| Location (rectum) | 2.69 | 1.02-7.06 | 0.045 |
| Histological type (carcinoma) | 3.4 | 1.08-10.71 | 0.037 |
CI: confidence interval
The complication rate of the trainees, who had experienced less than 50 ESD cases, was 10.7% (perforation 2.4%, 2/84 cases; postoperative bleeding 8.3%, 7/84 cases), which was not significantly higher than that of the experienced endoscopists. The mean operation time of the trainees was 87.5 minutes, which was relatively long, but not significantly longer than that of the experienced surgeons.
Discussion
This study evaluated the rates of serious complications (perforation 3.0%, 12/398 cases; postoperative bleeding 4.8%, 19/398 cases) following colorectal ESD in Saga, Japan. The rate of perforation during colorectal ESD was reported to be 1.4-10.4% (26-33,39-44). The complication rate was high during the early period when ESD was performed in a clinical study in 2007 (10.4%) (43). When colorectal ESD was performed in accordance with the advanced medical treatment system (No. 78) approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in June 2009, however, the rate of perforation was lower, as the procedure was performed cautiously and only by experienced endoscopists. Most studies that reported perforation associated with ESD in Japan included subjects who received the procedure under the advanced medical treatment system (2009-2012), and the number of such subjects under health insurance coverage since 2012 was limited. In this study, the perforation rate was almost equivalent to that in other reports (26-34,39-47). All cases with perforation in this study were treated conservatively with endoscopy, as previously reported in other institutes (26-32,36-49).
The rate of postoperative bleeding in colorectal ESD was reported to be 0-12.0% (15,16,31,32,39-45). The report with the highest complication rate (12.0%) included subjects with mild bleeding that did not require endoscopic hemostasis (44). The rate of postoperative bleeding in other studies ranged from 0% to 12.0% (15,16,31,32,39-45), which was slightly higher than in the present study. The present study included patients who required endoscopic hemostasis. The reason for the relatively low rate of postoperative bleeding was unclear, as prophylactic endoscopic therapy for bleeding was not applied routinely in the present study. All patients with bleeding in the present study were treated by the endoscopic procedure (1,50) without blood transfusion or a need to convert to a surgical operation.
The serious complication rates, including perforation and bleeding, in colorectal ESD performed by trainees described in several reports in Japan have been controversial (46,51-53); however, the operation time of the trainees was relatively long during the ESD procedure in all of these papers. The serious complication rates of the trainees in the present study were not different in 84 out of the 381 colorectal ESD patients, in whom ESD was performed under the coaching of experienced endoscopists. As a result, the rates of serious complications among the trainees in the present study did not differ substantially from those observed for experienced endoscopists.
The present study indicated that the serious complications of perforation and postoperative bleeding occurred in about 5% of patients associated with the colorectal ESD. All patients with serious complications were treated by endoscopic procedures, which indicated that colorectal ESD under health insurance coverage was a relatively safe procedure. The risk factor for perforation was a prolonged procedure time, and the risk factors for postoperative bleeding were a prolonged procedure time, tumor location in the rectum, and definitive colon cancer with a pathological diagnosis. Previous studies indicated several risk factors for serious complications with the colorectal ESD including the tumor location, fibrosis of the lesion, difficult endoscopic operability, and rich vascularity (27,40,47,51,54-62) The present retrospective study did not indicate these factors to be risk factors for serious complications, so further studies may be required to assess the reasons for the discrepancies in these findings. A prolonged procedure time being recognized as a risk factor in the present study was probably due to the difficulties associated with ESD, including those based on the tumor location, fibrosis, and difficult endoscopic operability, as previously reported.
In conclusion, most of the previous studies in Japan included patients who underwent colorectal ESD under special conditions in particular hospitals. The present study suggested that colorectal ESD may be relatively safely applied to treat early colorectal cancer as a common therapeutic approach.
The authors state that they have no Conflict of Interest (COI).
References
- 1.Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, et al. . JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 27: 417-434, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Puli SR, Kakugawa Y, Gotoda T, Antillon D, Saito Y, Antillon MR. Meta-analysis and systematic review of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. World J Gastroenterol 15: 4273-4277, 2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ahmad NA, Kochman ML, Long WB, Furth EE, Ginsberg GG. Efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection: a study of 101 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 55: 390-396, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yokota T, Sugihara K, Yoshida S. Endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplastic lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 37: 1108-1111, 1994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 25: 455-461, 1993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Saito Y, Fujii T, Kondo H, et al. . Endoscopic treatment for laterally spreading tumors in colon. Endoscopy 33: 682-686, 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kudo S, Kashida H, Tamura T, et al. . Colonoscopic diagnosis and management of nonpolypoid early colorectal cancer. World J Surg 24: 1081-1090, 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tanaka S, Haruma K, Oka S, et al. . Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment of superficially spreading colorectal neoplasms larger than 20 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 54: 62-66, 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y, Matsuda T. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis 24: 225-230, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, et al. . Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc 24: 343-352, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nakajima T, Saito Y, Tanaka S, et al. . Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorectal neoplasia in Japan. Surg Endosc 27: 3262-3270, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Binmoeller KF, Bohnacker S, Seifert H, Thonke F, Valdeyar H, Soehendra N. Endoscopic snare excision of “giant” colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 43: 183-188, 1996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Higaki S, Hashimoto S, Harada K, et al. . Long-term follow-up of large flat colorectal tumors resected endoscopically. Endoscopy 35: 845-849, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tamura S, Nakajo K, Yokoyama Y, et al. . Evaluation of endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading rectal tumors. Endoscopy 36: 306-312, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hurlstone DP, Sanders DS, Cross SS, et al. . Colonoscopic resection of lateral spreading tumors; a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection. Gut 53: 1334-1339, 2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tanaka S, Oka S, Chayama K. Endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial early colorectal carcinoma - indication, choice of methods and outcome. Nihon Syoukaki Naishikyou Gakkai Zasshi (J Jpn So Gastroenterol Endosc) 46: 243-252, 2004(in Japanese, abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
- 17.Makazu M, Sakamoto T, So E, et al. . Relationship between indeterminate or positive lateral margin and local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Endosc Int Open 3: 252-257, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Watanabe K, Ogata S, Kawazoe S, et al. . Clinical outcomes of EMR for gastric tumors: historical pilot evaluation between endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 63: 776-782, 2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Saito Y, Yamada M, So E, et al. . Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Technical advantage compared to endoscopic mucosal resection and minimally invasive surgery. Dig Endosc 26: 52-61, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ohata K, Nonaka K, Minato Y, et al. . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal tumor in a Japanese general hospital. J Oncol 2013: 218670, 2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sakamoto T, Mori G, Yamada M, et al. . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a review. World J Gastroenterol 20: 16153-16158, 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yamanouchi K, Ogata S, Sakata Y, et al. . Effect of additional surgery after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer. Endosc Int Open 4: 24-29, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Aoki S, Sakata Y, Shimoda R, et al. . High-density collagen patch prevents stricture after endoscopic circumferential submucosal dissection of the esophagus: a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 85: 1076-1085, 2017(Epub ahead of print). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Saito Y, Kawano H, Takeuchi Y, et al. . Current status of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Japan and other Asian countries: progressing towards technical standardization. Dig Endosc 24: 67-72, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shimoda R, Sakata Y, Fujise T, et al. . The adenoma miss rate of blue-laser imaging vs. white-light imaging during colonoscopy: a randomized tandem trial. Endoscopy 49: 186-190, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y, et al. . A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 72: 1217-1225, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Matsumoto A, Tanaka S, Oba S, et al. . Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors accompanied by fibrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 45: 1329-1339, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, Man-I M, et al. . Clinical significance of the muscle-retracting sign during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc Int Open 3: 246-251, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lee EJ, Lee JB, Choi YS, et al. . Clinical risk factors for perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large sized, nonpedunculated colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 26: 1587-1594, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS, et al. . Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 43: 573-578, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Terasaki M, Tanaka S, Shigita K, et al. . Risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms. Int J Colorectal Dis 29: 877-882, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ogasawara N, Yoshimine T, Noda H, et al. . Clinical risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors in Japanese patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28: 1407-1414, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I, et al. . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc 66: 100-107, 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tanaka S, Oka S, Chayama K. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: present status and future prospective, including its differentiation from endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol 43: 641-651, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. . Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Gastroenteol Endosc 71: 241-248, 2012(in Japanese). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fujimoto K, Fujishiro M, Kato M, et al. . Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. Dig Endosc 26: 1-14, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tsunada S, Ogata S, Ohyama T, et al. . Endoscopic closure of perforations caused by EMR in the stomach by application of metallic clips. Gastrointest Endosc 57: 948-951, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tajiri H, Katano S. Complications associated with endoscopic mucosal resection: definition of bleeding that can be viewed as accidental. Dig Endosc 16: 134-136, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Tanaka S, Terasaki M, Kakao H, Oka S, Chayama K. Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Dig Endosc 24: 73-79, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Asayama N, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. . Endoscopic submucosal dissection as total excisional biopsy for clinical T1 colorectal carcinoma. Digestion 91: 64-69, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yamashaita T, Takeuchi Y, Eudo N, et al. . Features of electrocoagulation syndrome after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 31: 615-620, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T, et al. . Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 81: 583-595, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N, et al. . Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5: 678-683, 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Takeuchi Y, Uedo N, Ishihara R, et al. . Efficacy of an endo-knife with a water-jet function (Flushknife) for endoscopic submucosal dissection of superficial colorectal neoplasms. Am J Gastroenterol 105: 314-322, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Yoshida N, Yagi N, Naito Y, Yoshikawa T. Safe procedure in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors focused on preventing complications. World J Gastroenterol 16: 1688-1695, 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Sakamoto T, Sato C, Makazu M, et al. . Short-terms outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection performed by trainees. Digestion 89: 37-42, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Mizushima T, Kato M, Iwanaga I, et al. . Technical difficultly according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 29: 133-139, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Yamamoto H. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early cancer and large flat adenomas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3: S74-S76, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N, et al. . Successful nonsurgical management of perforation complicating endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 38: 1001-1006, 2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Fujishiro M, Iguchi M, Kakushima N, et al. . Guidelines for endoscopic managements of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Endosc 28: 363-378, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Niimi K, Fujishiro M, Goto O, et al. . Safety and efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by the trainee endoscopist. Dig Endosc 24 (Suppl 1): 154-158, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Shiga H, Ohba R, Mastuhashi T, et al. . Feasibility of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) carried out by endoscopists with no or little experience in gastric ESD. Dig Endosc 29 (Suppl 2): 58-65, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Kang DU, Choi Y, Lee HS, et al. . Endoscopic and clinical factors affecting the prognosis of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection-related perforation. Gut Liver 10: 420-428, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Takamaru H, Saito Y, Yamada M, et al. . Clinical impact of endoscopic clip closure of perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 84: 494-502, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Imai K, Hotta K, Yamaguchi Y, et al. . Preoperative indicators of failure of en bolc resection or perforation in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: implications for lesion stratification by technical difficulties during stepwise training. Gastrointest Endosc 83: 963-965, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Sato K, Ito S, Kitagawa T, et al. . Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 28: 2959-2965, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lee SP, Kim JH, Sung IK, et al. . Effect of submucosal fibrosis on endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors: pathologic review of 173 cases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 5: 872-878, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Nishiyama S, et al. . Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 79: 427-435, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Hong SN, Byeon JS, Lee BI, et al. . Prediction model and risk score for perforation in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 84: 98-108, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Sakamoto H, Hayashi Y, Miura Y, et al. . Pocket-creation method facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors, non-granular type. Endosc Int Open 5: 123-129, 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Kim EK, Han DS, Ro Y, Eun CS, Yoo KS, Oh YH. The submucosal fibrosis: what does it mean for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection? Intest Res 14: 358-364, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Chiba H, Tachikawa J, Kurihara D, et al. . Safety and efficacy of simultaneous colorectal ESD for large synchronous colorectal lesions. Endosc Int Open 5: 595-602, 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]