Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technical difficulty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment for colorectal tumors, but is technically more difficult and has a higher risk of complications such as perforation than gastric ESD. Few studies have investigated the factors associated with technical difficulty and perforation in colorectal ESD. This study aimed to evaluate the technical difficulty according to location, and the risk factors for perforation, in colorectal ESD.

Methods

This retrospective study included 134 consecutive colorectal tumors treated by ESD in 122 patients at the Division of Endoscopy of Hokkaido University Hospital and the Department of Gastroenterology of Kitami Red Cross Hospital from November 2011 to February 2013. To evaluate the technical difficulty of performing ESD for colorectal tumors at specific locations, the en bloc R0 resection rate, specimen diameter, procedure speed, and procedure time were compared among tumor locations using the χ 2 test or analysis of variance. Risk factors for perforation were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

The en bloc R0 resection rate was 86.6 % (116/134), the mean tumor diameter was 27.1 mm, and the mean procedure time was 63.5 min. The mean speed of procedures was significantly slower in the sigmoid colon (24.7 min/cm2) than in other areas. Perforation occurred in nine cases (6.7 %). Submucosal fibrosis was the only factor independently associated with perforation (odds ratio 5.684, 95 % confidence interval 1.307–24.727).

Conclusions

ESD was slower for sigmoid colon tumors than for tumors in other areas, suggesting that ESD was technically more difficult in the sigmoid colon than in other colorectal areas. Submucosal fibrosis was independently associated with perforation during colorectal ESD.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Toyonaga T, Man-i M, East JE, Nishino E, Ono W, Hirooka T, Ueda C, Iwata Y, Sugiyama T, Dozaiku T, Hirooka T, Fujita T, Inokuchi H, Azuma T (2013) 1,635 Endoscopic submucosal dissection cases in the esophagus, stomach, and colorectum: complication rates and long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 27:1000–1008

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hotta K, Saito Y, Matsuda T, Shinohara T, Oyama T (2010) Local recurrence surveillance after endoscopic resection of large colorectal tumors. Dig Endosc 22:S63–S68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanaka S, Haruma K, Oka S, Takahashi R, Kunihiro M, Kitadai Y, Yoshihara M, Shimamoto F, Chayama K (2001) Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment of superficially spreading colorectal neoplasms larger than 20 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 54:62–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Khashab M, Eid E, Rusche M, Rex DK (2009) Incidence and predictors of “late” recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal resection of large sessile adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc 70:344–349

    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 tumors: a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection. Gut 53:1334–1339

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y, Matsuda T (2009) Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:225–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sakamoto T, Matsuda T, Otake Y, Nakajima T, Saito Y (2012) Predictive factors of local recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol 47:635–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kiriyama S, Saito Y, Matsuda T, Nakajima T, Mashimo Y, Joeng HK, Moriya Y, Kuwano H (2011) Comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection with transanal resection for non-invasive rectal tumor: a retrospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26:1028–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arezzo A, Passera R, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Kobayashi N, Sakamoto N, Yoshida N, Naito Y, Fujishiro M, Niimi K, Ohya T, Ohata K, Okamura S, Iizuka S, Takeuchi Y, Uedo N, Fusaroli P, Bonino MA, Verra M, Morino M (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large noninvasive rectal lesions. Surg Endosc 28:427–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS, Lee KI, Jang BK, Chung WJ, Hwang JS (2011) Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 43:573–578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I, Hirata M, Mouri R, Kanao H, Yoshida S, Chayama K (2007) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc 66:100–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tamai N, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Nakajima T, Matsuda T, Tajiri H (2012) Safety and efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in elders: clinical and follow-up outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:1493–1499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y, Hotta K, Sakamoto N, Ikematsu H, Fukuzawa M, Kobayashi N, Nasu J, Michida T, Yoshida S, Ikehara H, Otake Y, Nakajima T, Matsuda T, Saito D (2010) A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 72:1217–1225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoshida N, Wakabayashi N, Kanemasa K, Sumida Y, Hasegawa D, Inoue K, Morimoto Y, Kashiwa A, Konishi H, Yagi N, Naito Y, Yanagisawa A, Yoshikawa T (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: technical difficulties and rate of perforation. Endoscopy 41:758–761

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohta T, Ishihara R, Uedo N, Takeuchi Y, Nagai K, Matsui F, Kawada N, Yamashina T, Kanzaki H, Hanafusa M, Yamamoto S, Hanaoka N, Higashino K, Iishi H (2012) Factors predicting perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 75:1159–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Toyokawa T, Inaba T, Omote S, Okamoto A, Miyasaka R, Watanabe K, Izumikawa K, Horii J, Fujita I, Ishikawa S, Morikawa T, Murakami T, Tomoda J (2012) Risk factors for perforation and delayed bleeding associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: analysis of 1123 lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27:907–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Isomoto H, Shikuwa S, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ikeda K, Nishiyama H, Ohnita K, Mizuta Y, Shiozawa J, Kohno S (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut 58:331–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, Iishi H, Tanabe S, Oyama T, Doi T, Otani T, Fujisaki J, Ajioka Y, Hamada T, Inoue H, Gotoda T, Yoshida S (2006) A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 9:262–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yoon JY, Kim JH, Lee JY, Hong SN, Lee SY, Sung IK, Park HS, Shim CS, Han HS (2013) Clinical outcomes for patients with perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection of laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum. Surg Endosc 27:487–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ishii H, Ikeda K, Ohnita K, Nakao S, Shikuwa S (2009) Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 41:679–683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee EJ, Lee JB, Choi YS, Lee SH, Lee DH, Kim do S, Youk EG (2012) Clinical risk factors for perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large-sized, nonpedunculated colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 26:1587–1594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Tokyo: Kanehara and Co., Ltd.; 2009

  23. Toyonaga T, Man-i M, Fujita T, East JE, Nishino E, Ono W, Morita Y, Sanuki T, Yoshida M, Kutsumi H, Inokuchi H, Azuma T (2010) Retrospective study of technical aspects and complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum. Endoscopy 42:714–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsumoto A, Tanaka S, Oba S, Kanao H, Oka S, Yoshihara M, Chayama K (2010) Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors accompanied by fibrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 45:1329–1337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Drs. Mizushima, Kato, Iwanaga, Sato, Kubo, Ehira, Uebayashi, Ono, Nakagawa, Mabe, Shimizu, and Sakamoto have no conflict of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Kitami Red Cross Hospital, Kitami, Japan

    Takeshi Mizushima, Ichiro Iwanaga, Fumiyuki Sato, Kimitoshi Kubo, Nobuyuki Ehira & Minoru Uebayashi

  2. Division of Endoscopy, Hokkaido University Hospital, Kita-14-jo, Nishi-5-chome, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8648, Japan

    Takeshi Mizushima, Mototsugu Kato, Shouko Ono, Manabu Nakagawa, Katsuhiro Mabe & Yuichi Shimizu

  3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

    Naoya Sakamoto

Authors
  1. Takeshi Mizushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mototsugu Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ichiro Iwanaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fumiyuki Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kimitoshi Kubo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nobuyuki Ehira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Minoru Uebayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shouko Ono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Manabu Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Katsuhiro Mabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yuichi Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Naoya Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takeshi Mizushima.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mizushima, T., Kato, M., Iwanaga, I. et al. Technical difficulty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 29, 133–139 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3665-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3665-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation