Fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the water pressure method

Objectives Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the duodenum is challenging. The water pressure method (WP‐ESD) has been developed with a decreased rate of perforation. However, details of perioperative adverse events of WP‐ESD are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Digestive endoscopy 2022-03, Vol.34 (3), p.526-534
Hauptverfasser: Takada, Yoshihisa, Hirose, Takashi, Nishida, Kazuki, Kakushima, Naomi, Furukawa, Kazuhiro, Furune, Satoshi, Ishikawa, Eri, Sawada, Tsunaki, Maeda, Keiko, Yamamura, Takeshi, Ishikawa, Takuya, Ohno, Eizaburo, Nakamura, Masanao, Honda, Takashi, Ishigami, Masatoshi, Kawashima, Hiroki, Fujishiro, Mitsuhiro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the duodenum is challenging. The water pressure method (WP‐ESD) has been developed with a decreased rate of perforation. However, details of perioperative adverse events of WP‐ESD are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency and related factors of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during WP‐ESD. Methods A chart‐based retrospective analysis was performed on 43 patients who underwent duodenal WP‐ESD. The saline volume given into the body was calculated in all cases. All adverse events during WP‐ESD until 6 weeks were extracted, and factors related to intraoperative fecal incontinence or oral regurgitation were analyzed. The frequency of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation was also compared to those of 83 conventional ESD cases. Results In WP‐ESD, intraoperative fecal incontinence occurred in 12 (28%), oral regurgitation in six (14%), and aspiration pneumonia in one patient. For fecal incontinence, the infusion speed (saline volume divided by resection time) around 17 mL/min was a significant factor in multivariable analysis. For oral regurgitation, only tumor size was a significant factor in univariate analysis (P = 0.027). Significant difference was observed in the frequency of fecal incontinence between WP‐ESD and conventional ESD (28% vs. 0%, P 
ISSN:0915-5635
1443-1661
DOI:10.1111/den.14070