ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are minimally invasive procedures that treat early rectal cancer (ERC). Both are effective treatments, yet there are very few studies comparing them. The aim of our study was to identify ideal candidates for each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2019, 204 ERC patients were managed with either ESD (n=101) or TEM (n=103) at 7 international centers. Data analyzed included clinical success, tumor characteristics, procedure info, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 40 mm±23.9 in the ESD group and 56 mm±27.9 in the TEM group, significantly larger in the latter ( P <0.00001). Average procedure time was 131.5±67.9 minutes in ESD group and 104.9±28.4 minutes in TEM group ( P =0.000347). Average hospital stay was 3.3±2.6 days in the ESD group and 4.7±0.7 days in the TEM group ( P <0.00001). Adverse event rate was 6.8% in the ESD group and 24% in the TEM group. There were no significant difference in the rate of en bloc resection, technical success, tumor location, necessity of additional procedures, and tumor recurrence rates. CONCLUSION: Compared with TEM, ESD is a safer procedure with shorter hospital stay and should be offered for patients who have ERC.
Subject(s)
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Rectal Neoplasms , Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery , Humans , Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery/adverse effects , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/adverse effects , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dissection , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic management of Zenker diverticuli (ZD) has traditionally been via septotomy technique. The recent development of tunneling technique has shown to be both efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to evaluate the tunneling technique using per oral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) versus septotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent endoscopic management of ZD either by Z-POEM or septotomy from March 2017 until November 2020 from 9 international academic centers were included. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, procedure time, adverse events, and hospital length of stay were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients (mean age 74.9 y old, 55.4% male) were included: septotomy (n=49), Z-POEM (n=52). Preprocedure Functional Oral Intake Scale score and Eckardt score was 5.3 and 5.4 for the septotomy group and 5.9 and 5.15 for the Z-POEM group. Technical success was achieved in 98% of the Z-POEM group and 100% of the septotomy group. Clinical success was achieved in 84% and 92% in the septotomy versus Z-POEM groups. Adverse events occurred in 30.6% (n=15) in septotomy group versus 9.6% (n=5) in the Z-POEM group (P=0.017). Reintervention for ongoing symptoms occurred in 7 patients in the septotomy group and 3 patients in the Z-POEM group. Mean hospital length of stay was shorter for the Z-POEM group, at 1.5 versus 1.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: A tunneling technique via the Z-POEM procedure is an efficacious and safe endoscopic treatment for ZD. Z-POEM is a safer procedure with a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared with traditional septotomy technique.
