检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:刘晓 王燕斌 于剑锋[1] 刘心娟[1] 刘振[1] 张冬磊[1] 王泽楠[1] 金桐[1] 卢迪[1] 李晨 李雪龙 张晓云[1] 郝建宇[1] Liu Xiao;Wang Yanbin;Yu Jianfeng;Liu Xinjuan;Liu Zhen;Zhang Donglei;Wang Zenan;Jin Tong;Lu Di;Li Chen;Li Xuelong;Zhang Xiaoyun;Hao Jianyu(Department of Gastroenterology,Beijing Chao-yang Hospital,Capital Medical University,Beijing 100020,China)
机构地区:[1]首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院消化内科,100020
出 处:《中华消化内镜杂志》2020年第12期874-879,共6页Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
摘 要:目的研究新型牵引装置在结直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(laterally spreading tumor,LST)内镜黏膜下剥离术(endoscopic submucosal dissection,ESD)中的有效性。方法收集2018年8月-2020年4月首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院内镜中心经ESD治疗的结直肠LST患者资料,根据手术过程中是否使用牵引,分为传统ESD组(不使用牵引)及牵引辅助ESD组(利用3个夹子和1个橡皮圈组成弹性三角形牵引装置进行牵引)。分析两组总切除时间、黏膜下剥离时间、黏膜下剥离速率以及安全性等相关指标。结果共纳入54例结直肠LST患者,其中29例为传统ESD组,25例为牵引辅助ESD组。两组年龄、性别构成、病变位置比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。牵引辅助ESD组的病变面积为13.30(7.55,15.91)cm2,较传统ESD组的6.90(5.50,13.50)cm2大,差异有统计学意义(U=503.50,P=0.014)。传统ESD组与牵引辅助ESD组总切除时间[48.00(35.50,58.00)min比34.00(29.00,35.00)min,U=109.00,P<0.001]和黏膜下剥离时间[(39.52±12.37) min比(25.68±7.37)min,t=4.89,P<0.001]比较差异有统计学意义。牵引辅助ESD组黏膜下剥离速率快于传统ESD组[0.17(0.13,0.30)cm2/min比0.52(0.30,0.62)cm2/min,U=604.00,P<0.001]。传统ESD组有2例(6.9%)穿孔,牵引辅助ESD无穿孔发生,但穿孔发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.493)。结论利用夹子及橡皮圈进行牵引辅助的ESD相对于传统ESD治疗结直肠LST更加安全、有效。Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD)for colorectal laterally spreading tumor(LST).Methods Patients with LST treated by ESD in Endoscopic Center of Beijing Chao-yang Hospital of Capital Medical University from August 2018 to April 2020 were enrolled and divided into traditional ESD group(without traction)and traction-assisted ESD group(using an elastic triangle traction device which comprised of 3 clips and 1 rubber band).The total procedure time,submucosal dissection time,submucosal dissection speed and security of the two groups were compared.Results Fifty-four patients with colorectal LST were included,including 29 patients in the conventional ESD group and 25 patients in the traction-assisted ESD group.There were no statistical differences in age,gender composition or lesion location between the two groups(P>0.05).The lesion area of traction-assisted ESD group was larger than that of the traditional ESD group[13.30(7.55,15.91)cm^2 VS 6.90(5.50,13.50)cm^2,U=503.50,P=0.014].The total procedure time[48.00(35.50,58.00)min VS 34.00(29.00,35.00)min,U=109.00,P<0.001]and submucosal dissection time(39.52±12.37 min VS 25.68±7.37 min,t=4.89,P<0.001)were significantly different between the two groups.In terms of submucosal dissection speed,the assisted-traction ESD group was significantly faster than that of the traditional ESD group[0.17(0.13,0.30)cm^2/m in VS 0.52(0.30,0.62)cm^2/m in,U=604.00,P<0.001].There were 2(6.9%)cases of perforation in the traditional ESD group,and no perforation occurred in traction-assisted ESD,but the result was not statistically significant(P=0.493).Conclusion Compared with traditional ESD,traction-assisted ESD with clip and rubber band is safer and more effective in the treatment of colorectal LST.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.145