Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2018; 24(33): 3776-3785
Published online Sep 7, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i33.3776
Table 4 Comparison of procedural outcomes and oncologic outcomes according to surgical strategy
Early salvage ESD (n = 6, %)Late salvage ESD (n = 8, %)Late secondary ESD (n = 14, %)P value
Lesion size [mm, mean (SD)]19.8 (22.4)13.6 (10.9)16.4 (9.8)0.701
Specimen size [mm, mean (SD)]63.0 (33.0)46.4 (11.6)42.1 (12.8)0.084
Whole procedure time [min, mean (SD)]81.7 (48.5)85.9 (24.3)72.3 (41.1)0.714
Dissection time [min, mean (SD)]73.2 (46.8)73.0 (23.4)53.8 (40.7)0.421
Dissection speed [mm2/min, mean (SD)]19.4 (6.8)19.0 (7.5)24.9 (12.7)0.512
Method0.341
ESD only6 (100.0)8 (100.0)12 (85.7)
ESD plus snaring0 (0.0)0 (0.0)2 (14.3)
Complication0 (0.0)1 (12.5)2 (14.3)0.627
Perforation0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Bleeding0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (7.1)
Aspiration pneumonia0 (0.0)1 (12.5)1 (7.1)
Hospital stay [d, mean (SD)]7.2 (2.9)3.0 (1.8)3.0 (1.2)< 0.001
Median interval [d, mean (SD)]6.5 (3.1)129.0 (133.6)712.8 (546.5)0.001
En bloc resection6 (100.0)8 (100.0)12 (85.7)0.341
Curative resection6 (100.0)8 (100.0)11 (78.6)0.186
Additive treatment0 (0.0)0 (0.0)3 (21.4)0.186
Additive surgery0 (0.0)0 (0.0)2 (14.3)
Redo ESD0 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (7.1)