FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1626271237> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1626271237 endingPage "962" @default.
• W1626271237 startingPage "954" @default.
• W1626271237 abstract "Background and Aims The technical difficulties inherent in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasms may result in the failure of en bloc resection or perforation. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the predictors of en bloc resection failure or perforation by using preoperatively available factors. Methods Between September 2002 and March 2013, 716 colorectal ESDs in 673 consecutive patients were performed at a tertiary cancer center. Patient characteristics, tumor location, tumor type, colonoscopy-related factors, and endoscopist experience were assessed based on a prospectively recorded institutional ESD database. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of failure of en bloc resection or perforations, with subgroup analyses of ESDs performed by endoscopists less experienced in colorectal ESD (<40 cases) and for colonic lesions only. Results On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of failure of en bloc resection or perforations were the presence of fold convergence (odds ratio [OR] 4.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.9-9.9), protruding type (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 1.8-7.1), poor endoscope operability (OR 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-6.9), right-sided colonic lesions (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-6.3 vs rectal lesions), left-sided colonic lesions (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.3, vs rectal lesions), the presence of an underlying semilunar fold (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.6), and a less-experienced endoscopist (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.6). Among less-experienced endoscopists, colonic lesions were independent predictors (right-sided colonic lesions 8.1; 95% CI, 2.9-25.1; left-sided colonic lesions 8.1; 95% CI, 2.5-28.3 vs rectal lesions). For colonic lesions, the presence of fold convergence (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.6), poor endoscope operability (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2), a less-experienced endoscopist (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-1.8), and the presence of an underlying semilunar fold (OR 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7) were identified predictors. Conclusion This study successfully identified predictors of en bloc resection failure or perforation. Understanding these indicators could help to accurately stratify lesions according to technical difficulty and to appropriately select endoscopists. The technical difficulties inherent in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasms may result in the failure of en bloc resection or perforation. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the predictors of en bloc resection failure or perforation by using preoperatively available factors. Between September 2002 and March 2013, 716 colorectal ESDs in 673 consecutive patients were performed at a tertiary cancer center. Patient characteristics, tumor location, tumor type, colonoscopy-related factors, and endoscopist experience were assessed based on a prospectively recorded institutional ESD database. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of failure of en bloc resection or perforations, with subgroup analyses of ESDs performed by endoscopists less experienced in colorectal ESD (<40 cases) and for colonic lesions only. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of failure of en bloc resection or perforations were the presence of fold convergence (odds ratio [OR] 4.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.9-9.9), protruding type (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 1.8-7.1), poor endoscope operability (OR 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-6.9), right-sided colonic lesions (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-6.3 vs rectal lesions), left-sided colonic lesions (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.3, vs rectal lesions), the presence of an underlying semilunar fold (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.6), and a less-experienced endoscopist (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.6). Among less-experienced endoscopists, colonic lesions were independent predictors (right-sided colonic lesions 8.1; 95% CI, 2.9-25.1; left-sided colonic lesions 8.1; 95% CI, 2.5-28.3 vs rectal lesions). For colonic lesions, the presence of fold convergence (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.6), poor endoscope operability (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2), a less-experienced endoscopist (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-1.8), and the presence of an underlying semilunar fold (OR 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.7) were identified predictors. This study successfully identified predictors of en bloc resection failure or perforation. Understanding these indicators could help to accurately stratify lesions according to technical difficulty and to appropriately select endoscopists." @default.
• W1626271237 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5009142562 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5030566723 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5032113813 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5036877791 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5038641140 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5045038367 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5069123778 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5072568857 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5078077911 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5080708355 @default.
• W1626271237 creator A5086678062 @default.
• W1626271237 date "2016-05-01" @default.
• W1626271237 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W1626271237 title "Preoperative indicators of failure of en bloc resection or perforation in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: implications for lesion stratification by technical difficulties during stepwise training" @default.
• W1626271237 cites W1482791660 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W1503144092 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W1965321397 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W1969938538 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W1998645363 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2011908171 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2017821327 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2023014310 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2029487819 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2036623975 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2038065536 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2045186777 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2061912674 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2063508899 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2066202955 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2068162436 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2069367602 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2074212757 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2084037250 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2085264716 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2093127661 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2093609632 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2122262306 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2129787845 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2140876736 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2149279545 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2152566810 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2163026705 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2321845872 @default.
• W1626271237 cites W2326073155 @default.
• W1626271237 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.024" @default.
• W1626271237 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26297870" @default.
• W1626271237 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W1626271237 type Work @default.
• W1626271237 sameAs 1626271237 @default.
• W1626271237 citedByCount "86" @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372016 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372017 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372018 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372019 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372020 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372021 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372022 @default.
• W1626271237 countsByYear W16262712372023 @default.
• W1626271237 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5009142562 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5030566723 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5032113813 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5036877791 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5038641140 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5045038367 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5069123778 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5072568857 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5078077911 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5080708355 @default.
• W1626271237 hasAuthorship W1626271237A5086678062 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C191897082 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2777137803 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2778435480 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2778456384 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2778527123 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C2778866283 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C121608353 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C126322002 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C141071460 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C156957248 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C167135981 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C191897082 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C192562407 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C2777137803 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C2778435480 @default.
• W1626271237 hasConceptScore W1626271237C2778451229 @default.

• next