Olympus medical systems corp.Received a literature titled "predictive factors for the outcome of unsupervised endoscopic submucosal dissection during the initial learning curve with prevalence-based indication".This retrospective study analyzed possible predictors for effectiveness and safety outcome parameters during the initial learning curve.A total of 480 esds were enrolled.Ebr was achieved in 84.5% (394/466) of technically successful resections.Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed pl as negative independent predictor (or 0.27 [0.13¿0.57], p<0.001) and interventions in the esophagus (or 7.80, p<0.001), stomach (or 5.72 [2.36¿13.89], p<0.001), and rectum (or 2.29, p=0.007) as positive independent predictors for ebr.Complications occurred in 9.5% (8/84) of esophageal, 13.3% (15/113) of gastric, 16.0% (29/181) of rectal, and 15.8% (16/101) of colonic esds.There were 14/480 (2.9%) resections that were technically unsuccessful.Complications and fibrosis/pretreatment mainly caused technical failure.In conclusion, during the initial learning curve of an unsupervised esd program with prevalence-based indication, pretreated lesions and colonic esds should be avoided.In contrast, lesion size and organ-based localizations have less predictive value for the outcome.Type of adverse events/number of patients: event 1: bleeding (27) including patient#2,4,13 in table 4.Event 2: perforation (41) including patient #3,6,7,11,12,14 in table 4.Complications occurred in 14.2% (68/480) of the cases with 27 (5.6%) bleedings and 41 (8.5%) perforations (table 2).Therapy of bleeding was conservative in 14.8% (4/27) and endoscopic in 85.2% (23/27) per patient.Therapy of perforation was conservative in 9.8% (4/41), endoscopic in 75.6% (31/41), and surgical in 14.6% (6/41) of the cases.This event requires thirty (30) reports.The patient identifiers are as follows: 1.(b)(6): kd-650q, for non-identified patients.2.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for non-identified patients.3.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for non-identified patients.4.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#2 (age 78/sex m) in table4.5.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#2 (age 78/sex m) in table4.6.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#2 (age 78/sex m) in table4.7.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#3 (age 68/sex f) in table4.8.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#3 (age 68/sex f) in table4.9.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#3 (age 68/sex f) in table4.10.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#4 (age 49/sex m) in table4.11.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#4 (age 49/sex m) in table4.12.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#4 (age 49/sex m) in table4.13.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#6 (age 51/sex f) in table4.14.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#6 (age 51/sex f) in table4.15.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#6 (age 51/sex f) in table4.16.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#7 (age 66/sex f) in table4.17.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#7 (age 66/sex f) in table4.18.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#7 (age 66/sex f) in table4.19.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#11 (age 66/sex m) in table4.20.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#11 (age 66/sex m) in table4.21.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#11 (age 66/sex m) in table4.22.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#12 (age 72/sex f) in table4.23.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#12 (age 72/sex f) in table4.24.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#12 (age 72/sex f) in table4.25.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#13 (age 92/sex m) in table4.26.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#13 (age 92/sex m) in table4.27.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#13 (age 92/sex m) in table4.28.(b)(6): kd-650q, for patient#14 (age 74/sex m) in table4.29.(b)(6): kd-620qr, for patient#14 (age 74/sex m) in table4.30.(b)(6): d-201-11804, for patient#14 (age 74/sex m) in table4.This report is for (b)(6).There is no report of any olympus device malfunction in any procedure described in this study.
|