Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 15;4(4):611–616. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12298

Table 2.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes per group model 2

Experts ESD trainees P‐value
Procedure speed in cm2/h, mean (SD)* 10.3 (13.1) 6.7 (7.6) <0.001
Procedure time in minutes, mean (SD)* 98.8 (73.0) 119.9 (71.1) <0.001
Specimen area in cm2, mean (SD)* 15.1 (16.8) 12.6 (10.7) 0.03
En‐bloc resection, n (%) 260 (95.6) 301 (94.7) 0.61
R0 resection, n (%) 233 (85.7) 266 (83.7) 0.50
Curative resection, n (%) 221 (81.3) 258 (81.1) 0.95
Beyond fold, n (%)* 171 (62.9) 165 (51.9) <0.01
F2 fibrosis, n (%)* 54 (19.9) 39 (12.3) 0.01
Ileocecal valve or anus involvement, n (%)* 27 (9.9) 14 (4.4) <0.01
Muscularis propria damaged, n (%)* 34 (12.5) 59 (18.6) 0.04
Fever (>37.5°C), n (%) 32 (11.8) 39 (12.3) 0.85
PECS, n (%) 19 (7.0) 23 (7.2) 0.93
Perforation, n (%) 10 (3.7) 22 (6.9) 0.09
Delayed bleeding, n (%) 8 (2.9) 14 (4.4) 0.34
Emergency operation, n (%) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6) 0.19
*

P < 0.05.

Adjusted log linear regression of procedure speed (in cm/h) versus expertise and relevant confounders.

PECS, post‐colorectal ESD coagulation syndrome.