Usefulness of the clip-flap method of endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized controlled trial

doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i35.4077

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 24, Issue 35

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (7171)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-2) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

402

HTML

4243

Figures (1-2)

180

Tables (1-3)

142

Sum=4967

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

860

Download

1344

Sum=2204

Sep 21, 2018 (publication date) through Apr 26, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (11)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Randomized Clinical Trial

World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2018; 24(35): 4077-4085
Published online Sep 21, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i35.4077

Table 1 Characteristics of patients scheduled to undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection between those with or without endoclip

	Total	Conventional group	Clip-flap group	P value
Number (n)	104	55	49
Age (yr)	70.1 ± 8.3	69.0 ± 9.5	71.2 ± 6.5	0.17
Sex (male : female)	80:24	42:13	38:11	0.89
Body weight (kg)	59.0 ± 11.2	58.0 ± 11.0	60.2 ± 11.5	0.34
BMI (kg/m²)	22.2 ± 3.1	21.7 ± 2.9	22.8 ± 3.3	0.08
Drugs, n (%)
Anticoagulants	19 (18.3)	11(20.0)	8 (16.3)	0.63
Antihypertensive dugs	56 (53.8)	25 (45.5)	31 (63.3)	0.07
Oral hypoglycemics	16 (15.4)	8 (14.5)	8 (16.3)	0.80
Cholesterol-lowering agents	25 (24.0)	13 (23.6)	12 (24.5)	0.91
H. pylori infection (positive)	36 (34.6)	16 (29.1)	20 (40.8)	0.21
Hemodialysis, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	-
Kyoto classification of gastric mucosa
Atrophy (A0:A1:A2)	3:7:94	2:4:49	1:3:45	0.86
Intestinal metaplasia (IM0:IM1:IM2)	8:36:60	5:15:35	3:21:25	0.24
Diffuse redness (DR0:DR1 :DR2)	47:24:33	26:13:16	21:11:17	0.83
Tumor
Histological diagnosis (adenoma/cancer)	9/95	6/49	3/46	0.39
Differentiation (tub1 + tub2/por + sig)	92/3	48/1	44/2	0.52
Depth (m/sm)	82/13	42/7	40/6	0.86
Location (upper third/middle/lower)	10/37/57	7/20/28	3/17/29	0.47
Major axis of tumor (mm)	18.5 ± 13.4	17.5 ± 11.8	19.7 ± 15.1	0.39
ESD
Procedure time (min)	72.6 ± 49.5	70.8 ± 46.2	74.7 ± 53.3	0.69
Area of resected specimen (mm²)	962 1 ± 896.2	884.6 ± 792.1	1006.4 ± 1004.8	0.49
En bloc resection rate (n, %)	104 (100)	55 (100)	49 (100)	-
Curative endoscopic resection rate (n, %)	94 (90.4)	50 (90.9)	44 (89.8)	0.85
Coagulation of vessels at 2^nd look (n, %)	28 (26.9)	16 (29.6)	12 (25.0)	0.60
Delayed bleeding (n, %)	4 (3.8)	3 (5.5)	1 (2.0)	0.37
Perforation (n, %)	2 (1.9)	1 (1.8)	1 (2.0)	0.93
Operator
Procedure times (< 50 cases)	83	43	40	0.66

A0: No atrophic pattern; A1: Atrophic patterns with a margin between the non-atrophic fundic mucosa and atrophic mucosa located in the lesser curvature of the stomach; A2: Atrophic patterns; whose margin does not cross the lesser curvature; BMI: Body mass index; DR0: No diffuse erythema; DR1: Mild diffuse erythema; DR2: Severe diffuse erythema; IM0: No intestinal metaplasia; IM1: Intestinal metaplasia within antrum; IM2: Intestinal metaplasia up to corpus; lower: Lower third of the stomach; m: mucosal layer; middle: Middle third of the stomach; por: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig: Signet ring cell carcinoma; sm: Submucosal layer; tub1: Well differentiated adenocarcinoma; tub2: Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; upper: Upper third of the stomach; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; H. pylori: Helicobacter pylori.

Table 2 Efficacy by procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tumors within inclusion criteria

		Conventional group(n = 50)	Clip-flap group(n = 44)	P value
Procedure time (min)		67.3 ± 44.9	67.6 ± 48.4	0.98
H. pylori infection	Positive	64.1 ± 27.8 (n = 15)	65.6 ± 53.1 (n = 19)	0.92
	Negative	68.6 ± 50.7 (n = 35)	69.1 ± 45.5 (n = 25)	0.98
Kyoto classification of gastric mucosa
Atrophy	A2	68.7 ± 45.2 (n = 44)	70.3 ± 49.7 (n = 40)	0.87
	A0 + 1	57.2 ± 44.8 (n = 6)	40.3 ± 17.6 (n = 4)	0.50
Intestinal metaplasia	IM2	71.6 ± 45.8 (n = 31)	65.2 ± 45.2 (n = 22)	0.62
	IM0 + IM1	60.2 ± 43.6 (n = 19)	70.0 ± 52.3 (n = 22)	0.53
Tumor
Histological diagnosis	Adenoma	36.5 ± 11.1 (n = 6)	58.0 ± 40.2 (n = 3)	0.24
	Cancer	71.5 ± 46.1 (n = 44)	68.3 ± 49.3 (n = 41)	0.76
Differentiation	tub1 + tub2	71.1 ± 46.6 (n = 43)	69.0 ± 49.7 (n = 40)	0.85
	Por + sig	90 (n = 1)	40 (n = 1)	-
Depth	m	71.4 ± 47.2 (n = 42)	62.7 ± 40.1 (n = 38)	0.38
	sm	74.0 ± 1.4 (n = 2)	139.6 ± 97.1 (n = 3)	0.43
Location	Upper	119.8 ± 60.9 (n=6)	158.5 ± 101.1 (n=2)	0.52
	Middle	74.8 ± 37.3 (n = 19)	91.4 ± 52.1 (n = 14)	0.29
	Lower	49.0 ± 34.7 (n = 25)	49.2 ± 28.0 (n = 28)	0.98
Major axis of tumor (mm)	< 10	50.0 ± 35.9 (n = 24)	46.6 ± 31.0 (n = 20)	0.74
	10 <, < 20	72.3 ± 46.2 (n = 16)	59.8 ± 23.7 (n = 14)	0.37
	20 <	100.8 ± 44.9 (n = 10)	120.5 ± 64.5 (n = 10)	0.44
ESD
Area of specimen (mm²)	< 500	33.8 ± 14.0 (n = 22)	53.2 ± 51.7 (n = 15)	0.17
	500 <, < 1000	72.6 ± 38.4 (n = 16)	71.1 ± 29.3 (n = 23)	0.89
	1000 <	86.0 ± 32.1 (n = 12)	138.5 ± 79.3 (n = 9)	0.06
Coagulation of vessels at 2^nd look	Done	69.5 ± 38.4 (n = 13)	67.4 ± 28.8 (n = 12)	0.89
	No	66.5 ± 47.4 (n = 37)	67.6 ± 52.6 (n = 35)	0.92
Delayed bleeding (n, %)		105.7 ± 23.7 (n = 3)	80 (n = 1)	-
Perforation (n, %)		71 (n = 1)	234 (n = 1)	-
Operator
Procedure times	< 50 times	61.1 ± 37.1 (n = 39)	58.8 ± 32.1 (n = 36)	0.78
	> 50 times	89.3 ± 62.9 (n = 11)	107.0 ± 83.9 (n = 8)	0.60

Table 3 Univariate analysis of parameters for delayed procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection

	Parameters	Conventional group			Clip-flap group
	Parameters	Odds ratio	95%CI	P value	Odds ratio	95%CI	P value
Age (yr)	> 70	0.67	0.22-2.10	0.49	0.79	0.22-2.86	0.72
Sex	Male	2.70	0.63-11.55	0.18	-	-	-
H. pylori infection	Positive	1.31	0.39-4.44	0.66	0.69	0.20-2.43	0.57
Kyoto classification of gastric mucosa
Atrophy (vs A0 + A1)	A2	1.52	0.25-9.19.57	0.65	-	-	-
Intestinal metaplasia (vs IM0 + IM1)	IM2	2.03	0.61-6.72	0.25	1.00	0.29-3.42	1.00
Tumor
Depth (vs m)	sm	-	-	-	3.85	0.31-46.49	0.29
Location (vs Lower)	Upper/middle	10.12	2.42-42.41	0.02	4.75	1.41-16.05	< 0.01
Major axis of tumor (mm) (vs < 10)	10 <, < 20	3.00	0.78-11.54	0.11	3.15	0.61-16.29	0.17
	20 <	7.00	1.36-36.01	0.02	22.67	3.14-163.63	< 0.01
Ulceration	UL+	1.42	0.18-10.99	0.74	1.80	0.104-30.89	0.69
ESD
Area of specimen (mm²) (vs < 500)	500 <	3.29	0.28-39.14	0.35	-	-	-
Operator
Procedure experience	< 50 times	0.32	0.08-1.29	0.11	0.26	0.05-1.30	0.10

Citation: Ban H, Sugimoto M, Otsuka T, Murata M, Nakata T, Hasegawa H, Inatomi O, Bamba S, Andoh A. Usefulness of the clip-flap method of endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized controlled trial. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24(35): 4077-4085
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v24/i35/4077.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i35.4077