Short-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms: An...

With endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic surgery, treatment for colorectal neoplasms has become minimally invasive. However, few studies have compared endoscopic submucosal dissection with laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms, excluding deeply invasive cancer on preoperative diagnosis.

We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients who had undergone endoscopic submucosal dissection or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms between November 2005 and December 2015. We limited patients who were not suspected preoperatively to have aggressive submucosal invasion >1,000 μm.

Ninety-five patients underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and 37 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection tended to involve rectal neoplasms more often than colonic neoplasms, shorter operative times, and shorter lengths of hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery. The perforation rate during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection in the early period (November 2005 to December 2010) and late period (January 2011 to December 2015) was 14.8% and 2.9%, respectively. In all cases of perforation during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the ability to maneuver the endoscope was compromised. Though tumors were larger in patients who underwent rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the perforation and postoperative bleeding rates with rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection were both 3.2%. The most common indication for laparoscopic surgery was difficulty performing endoscopic submucosal dissection. Serious complications were rare.

For colonic neoplasms, laparoscopic surgery should be considered when endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically difficult in the early period. For rectal neoplasms, endoscopic submucosal dissection is desirable even for those of large size.