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.
|