Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 3, 2025
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Endoscopic mucosal resection with double band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal
Jia-Lan Huang1, Ri-Yun Gan1, Ze-Han Chen1
1Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen 518020, Guangdong Province, China.
Background:
Endoscopic resection remains an effective method for the treatment of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) (≤ 10 mm). Moreover, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with double band ligation (EMR-dB), a simplified modification of EMR with band ligation, is an alternative strategy to remove small rectal NETs.
Aim:
To evaluate the feasibility and safety of EMR-dB for the treatment of small rectal NETs (≤ 10 mm).
Methods:
A total of 50 patients with small rectal NETs, without regional lymph node enlargement or distant metastasis confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound, computerized tomography scan, or magnetic resonance imaging, were enrolled in the study from March 2021 to June 2022. These patients were randomly assigned into the EMR-dB (n = 25) group or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) group (n = 25). The characteristics of the patients and tumors, procedure time, devices cost, complete resection rate, complications, and recurrence outcomes were analyzed.
Results:
There were 25 patients (13 males, 12 females; age range 28-68 years old) in the EMR-dB group, and the ESD group contained 25 patients (15 males, 10 females; age range 25-70 years old). Both groups had similar lesion sizes (EMR-dB 4.53 ± 1.02 mm, ESD 5.140 ± 1.74 mm; P = 0.141) and resected lesion sizes(1.32 ± 0.52 cm vs 1.58 ± 0.84 cm; P = 0.269). Furthermore, the histological complete resection and en bloc resection rates were achieved in all patients (100% for each). In addition, there was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups. However, the procedure time was significantly shorter and the devices cost was significantly lower in the EMR-dB group. Besides, there was no recurrence in both groups during the follow-up period.
Conclusion:
The procedure time of EMR-dB was shorter compared with ESD, and both approaches showed a similar curative effect. Taken together, EMR-dB was a feasible and safe option for the treatment of small rectal NETs.
