Endoscopy 2013; 45(09): 714-717
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344555
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Risk of electrocoagulation syndrome after endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon and rectum

Dahyun Jung
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Young Hoon Youn
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Jaehoon Jahng
2   Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Jie-Hyun Kim
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Hyojin Park
1   Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 08 October 2012

accepted after revision 12 June 2013

Publication Date:
29 August 2013 (online)

Background and study aims: The risk of post endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome (PEECS) is unknown. We aimed to investigate the incidence and clinicopathologic risk factors associated with PEECS after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

Patients and methods: All patients treated with colorectal ESD between 2009 and 2011 by a single expert ESD endoscopist at Gangnam Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea were included in this retrospective study. Patients who had fever, regional rebound tenderness, or marked leukocytosis after ESD were defined as having PEECS. 

Results: 89 patients were treated during the study period. Six patients with microperforation and one patient with overt perforation were excluded. Thus, 82 cases without perforation were analyzed. The risk of PEECS was 40.2 %. In the PEECS group, the mean size of resected specimens was larger and mean procedure time was longer than in the patients without PEECS. The risk of PEECS was significantly lower for patients with carcinoid tumors, and for ESD in the rectosigmoid area. Piecemeal resection was significantly associated with the development of PEECS. In multivariate analysis, lesion size larger than 3 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.2 – 21.7) and site other than rectosigmoid (OR 7.6, 95 %CI 2.1 – 27.9) were independent risk factors for PEECS. 

Conclusions: Large tumor size and tumor site other than rectosigmoid were independent risk factors related to PEECS. Patients with tumors larger than 3 cm, in colon areas other than the rectosigmoid, should be observed carefully after colorectal ESD.

 
  • References

  • 1 Antillon MR, Bartalos CR, Miller ML et al. En bloc endoscopic submucosal dissection of a 14-cm laterally spreading adenoma of the rectum with involvement to the anal canal: expanding the frontiers of endoscopic surgery (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 332-337
  • 2 Hurlstone DP, Atkinson R, Sanders DS et al. Achieving R0 resection in the colorectum using endoscopic submucosal dissection. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 1536-1542
  • 3 Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF et al. EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 234-241
  • 4 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T et al. Endoscopic treatment of large superficial colorectal tumors: a case series of 200 endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 966-973
  • 5 Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Nakamura M et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal epithelial neoplasia. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 493-497
  • 6 Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 100-107
  • 7 Tamegai Y, Saito Y, Masaki N et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: a safe technique for colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 418-422
  • 8 Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 678-683
  • 9 Tanaka S, Oka S, Chayama K. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: present status and future perspective, including its differentiation from endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43: 641-651
  • 10 Christie JP, Levin B editors Selected papers from the Second International Congress on Colonoscopy and Diseases of the Large Bowel, March 6 to 8, 1980. Gastrointest Endosc 1981; 27: 184-187
  • 11 Christie JP, Marrazzo J. Mini-perforation of the colon – not all postpolypectomy perforations require laparotomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34: 132-135
  • 12 Waye JD, Lewis BS, Yessayan S. Colonoscopy – a prospective report of complications. J Clin Gastroenterol 1992; 15: 347-351
  • 13 General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus. Part II. Histopathological classification. Japanese Research Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Jpn J Surg 1983; 13: 574-598
  • 14 Uraoka T, Saito Y, Matsuda T et al. Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum. Gut 2006; 55: 1592-1597
  • 15 Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS et al. Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 573-578
  • 16 Waye JD, Kahn O, Auerbach ME. Complications of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1996; 6: 343-377
  • 17 Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic polypectomy: lessons to learn from an experience with 1576 polyps. Am Surg 1988; 54: 61-63