Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 16, 2022; 14(1): 49-62
Published online Jan 16, 2022. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i1.49
Table 4 Details of patients who had complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection
Age (yr)
Gender
Ps
Underlying disease
Past history
Location1
Size (mm)
Macroscopic type
Final pathology
Curability
Specimen (mm)
Complications
83F1Post-BHAL, Ant400-IIc, UL (+)Tub2 > por2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0Noncurative60Bleeding G2
83M0L, Ant100-IIc, UL (+)Tub1 > tub2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0Curative20Bleeding G2
92M0Laryngeal cancerU, Post50Type1Surgical resection: pap > tub, SS, ly0, v1, NX, HMXNoncurative522Perforation G3
89M3Brain cancerM, Les330-IIc, UL (+)Sig/por2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0Noncurative68Bleeding G3, pneumonitis G2
83F2AD, DepressionU, Les150-IIaTub1, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0Curative30Perforation G2
82F0(1) L, Ant(1) 20(1) 0-IIc(1) Tub2 > tub1 > por, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0(1) Curative54Bleeding G2
(2) L, Ant(2)10(2)0-IIc(2) Tub1-tub2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0(2) Curative
84M2AP, COPDL, Les150-IIcPor1, M, ly0, v0, HMX, VMXNoncurative40Bleeding G2
80M0Colon cancer, EGCL, Les160-IIa+IIc, UL (+)Tub1 > tub2 > por, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0Curative47Bleeding G2