The value of endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal lesions: A single-center experience

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: To observe and preliminarily evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of non-ampullary duodenal lesions (NADLs). Methods: This retrospective observational study included 84 patients who underwent endoscopic resection (ER) with non-ampullary duodenal lesions, between March 2010 and November 2020, at the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (Beijing, China). Data on patient demographics, therapeutic outcomes, and follow-up results were analyzed. Results: There were 44 patients undergoing EMR, and 40 patients accepting ESD. The overall en bloc resection rate was 98.8% (83/84). For the neoplastic lesions, the overall en bloc resection rate and curative rate were 98.5% (67/68) and 89.7% (61/68), respectively. The procedure-related bleeding and perforation rates were 2.4% and 10.7%, respectively. Univariate analysis results indicated that the main correlation factor of non-curative pathologic resection was tumor size (p = 0.004) and resection size (P < 0.01). There showed a higher curative rate in patients with tumors less than 25 mm in diameter. Multivariate logistic regression analyses determined that the tumor size (OR 0.935; 95% CI 0.878-0.995; P = 0.035) was associated with non-curative resection. No recurrences were observed in patients who had undergone a complete ER during a follow-up period of 42.8 months (range, 3-127 months). Conclusion: Endoscopic resection is an effective, safe, and feasible treatment for non-ampullary duodenal lesions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, Z., Dou, L., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., He, S., Zhu, J., … Wang, G. (2021). The value of endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal lesions: A single-center experience. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology, 27(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_646_20

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free