Page 77 - Read Online
P. 77

Suwa et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:20  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.123  Page 9 of 11

               Table 3. Patient characteristics, procedural results (UEMR), and previous literature
                                                         Our report (UEMR)    Yamasaki et al. [19]  (UEMR)
                (Patients/Lesions)                       (71/76)              (155/166)
                                                                     a                    b
                Age, median (range)                      70.5 (28-89) years   65.9 (±10.6) years
                Sex (male/female), n                     41/30                110/ 45
                Location (1st/2nd/3rd), n                12/61/3              10/151/5
                                                                  a                     b
                Size (endoscopic), (range)               10 (2-40) mm         10.0 (±4.1) mm
                Macroscopic type, n
                (0-I/0-IIa/0-IIa+IIc/0-IIc)              10/37/21/8           18/106/0/42
                Biopsy before UEMR                       48.7% (37/76)        100% (166/166)
                Closure after UEMR                       94.7% (72/76)        99.4% (165/166)
                En bloc resection                        82.9% (63/76)        89.8% (149/166)
                Histopathological assessment, n
                (carcinoma/adenoma/nonneoplastic)        17/55/4              74/91/1
                R0 resection                             52.0% (39/75)        66.9% (111/166)
                HMs negative                             50.0% (36/72)        -
                VMs negative                             97.2% (70/72)        -
                Adverse events, n
                delayed bleeding/                        2/0/0                2/0/0
                intraoperative perforation/delayed perforation
                Recurrence                               4.8% (3/52) c        2.6% (4/155) d
                                                                             a          b        c
               UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; HM: horizontal margin; VM: vertical margin;  median (range);  mean (±SD);  carcinoma or
                                                                            d
               adenoma, a month after UEMR. The median follow-up period was 2 months (range, 1-37 months);  12 months after UEMR.
               More cases for evaluation are needed to clarify the distinction between UEMR and other treatment
               methods, such as EMR or ESD.


               CONCLUSION
               The indications and outcomes of CSP and UEMR as minimally invasive treatments for SNADETs are
               outlined, and we present the results of previous reports, as well as our results. However, one of the most
               important problems with SNADETs was the lower preoperative diagnostic accuracy including preoperative
               biopsy [27-29] , and further research is needed to determine whether image enhancement endoscopy is
               necessary and how to improve preoperative diagnostic quality. Recently, Japan and the ESGE [30,31]  published
               guidelines on the management of duodenal tumors, which provided certain directions for the treatment of
               SNADETs. However, previous reports are few, and the number of cases is still insufficient; thus, further
               evidence is desired in the future.


               DECLARATIONS
               Authors’ Contributions
               Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study, performed data analysis and
               interpretation, and performed data acquisition: Suwa T, Takizawa K

               Availability of Data and Materials
               Not applicable.

               Financial Support and Sponsorship
               None.
   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82