Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Aims: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard treatment for superficial colorectal neoplasms worldwide. However, challenges remain in achieving dissection at the precise layer. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a novel ESD technique involving natural traction, referred to as the bridge formation method (BFM).
Methods And Results: The two main features of the BFM are creating a large mucosal flap and leaving normal mucosa on both sides of the lesion until the bridge is made at the end of the procedure. This retrospective study included consecutive patients with 2647 colorectal lesions resected by ESD from September 2003 to December 2023. We divided them into the BFM group and the non-BFM group and conducted propensity score matching.After propensity score matching, 1648 cases were enrolled (824 cases in each group). The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the BFM than non-BFM group (99.6% vs. 96.7%, < 0.01). The R0 resection rate and the average dissection speed (㎟/min) were significantly higher in the BFM than non-BFM group (98.8% vs. 96.4%, < 0.01, and 18.9 vs. 18.0, = 0.03). The occurrence rates of perforation and delayed bleeding showed no significant difference between the non-BFM and BFM groups (2.8% vs. 3.6%, = 0.40, and 1.1% vs. 1.0%, = 1.00).
Conclusions: The BFM is a suitable method for colorectal ESD as it enables rapid dissection and improves both en bloc resection and R0 resection rates.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976456 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.70149 | DOI Listing |