Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Endoscopic mucosal resection in high- and low-volume centers: a prospective multicentric study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective therapeutic technique well-standardized worldwide for the treatment of gastrointestinal neoplasm limited to the mucosal layer. To date, no study has compared technical and clinical differences based on the number of EMRs performed per year. This study aimed to compare EMR technical success, complications, and clinical outcome between low-volume centers (LVCs) and high-volume centers (HVCs). A total of nine endoscopic centers were included in the study.

Methods

This prospective study investigated consecutive patients with sessile polyps or flat colorectal lesions 1 cm or larger referred for EMR.

Results

A total of 427 lesions were resected in 384 patients at nine endoscopic centers. Males accounted for 60.4 % and females for 39.6 % of the patients. Most of the EMRs (84.8 %) were performed in HVCs and only 15.2 % in LVCs. All the lesions were resected in only one session. Argon plasma coagulation was performed on the margins of piecemeal resection in 15.7 % of the patients in HVCs only. Complete excision was achieved for 98.6 % of the lesions in HVCs and 98.8 % of the lesions in LVCs. The complication rate was 4.4 % in HVCs and 4.6 % in LVCs (p = 0.94). Delayed bleeding occurred in 2.5 % of the HVC cases and 3.1 % of the LVC cases. Perforation occurred in 1.9 % of the HVC cases and 1.5 % of the LVC cases (p = 1.00). Recurrences were experienced with 15 % of the lesions: 15.5 % in HVCs and 14 % in LVCs (p = 0.79).

Conclusions

The study showed that EMR can be performed also in LVC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stein HJ, Feith M (2005) Surgical strategies for early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 19:927–940

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. (2003) The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58(6 Suppl): S3–S43

  3. Park YM, Cho E, Kang HY, Kim JM (2011) The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc 25:2666–2677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hunt GC, Coyle WJ, Pais SA, Adler DG, Degregorio B, Dimaio CJ, Dua KS, Enestvedt BK, Lee LS, McHenry L Jr, Mullady DK, Rajan E, Sedlack RE, Shami VM, Tierney WM, Faulx AL, Training Committee 2010–2012 (2012) Core curriculum for EMR and ablative techniques. Gastrointest Endosc 76:725–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hurlstone DP, Sanders DS, Cross SS, Adam I, Shorthouse AJ, Brown S, Drew K, Lobo AJ (2004) Colonoscopic resection of lateral spreading tumours: a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection. Gut 53:1334–1339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brooker JC, Saunders BP, Shah SG, Thapar CJ, Suzuki N, Williams CB (2002) Treatment with argon plasma coagulation reduces recurrence after piecemeal resection of large sessile colonic polyps: a randomized trial and recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 55:371–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tamura S, Nakajo K, Yokoyama Y, Ohkawauchi K, Yamada T, Higashidani Y, Miyamoto T, Ueta H, Onishi S (2004) Evaluation of endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading rectal tumours. Endoscopy 36:306–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mannath J, Subramanian V, Singh R, Telakis E, Ragunath K (2011) Polyp recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of sessile and flat colonic adenomas. Dig Dis Sci 56:2389–2395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bories E, Pesenti C, Monges G, Lelong B, Moutardier V, Delpero JR, Giovannini M (2006) Endoscopic mucosal resection for advanced sessile adenoma and early-stage colorectal carcinoma. Endoscopy 38:231–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tanaka S, Haruma K, Oka S, Takahashi R, Kunihiro M, Kitadai Y, Yoshihara M, Shimamoto F, Chayama K (2011) Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment of superficially spreading colorectal neoplasms larger than 20 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 54:62–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

E. Masci, E. Viale, C. Notaristefano, B. Mangiavillano, G. Fiori, C. Crosta, M. Dinelli, M. Maino, P. Viaggi, F. Della Giustina, V. Teruzzi, G. Grasso, G. Manes, S. Zambelli, and P. A. Testoni have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Mangiavillano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masci, E., Viale, E., Notaristefano, C. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection in high- and low-volume centers: a prospective multicentric study. Surg Endosc 27, 3799–3805 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2977-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2977-5

Keywords

Navigation