Copyright
©2008 The WJG Press and Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2008; 14(43): 6726-6732
Published online Nov 21, 2008. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.6726
Published online Nov 21, 2008. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.6726
Table 1 Baseline and tumor characteristics of the patients in each group
| Characteristic | Group A (n = 265) | Group B (n = 72) |
| Gender (M/F) (%) | 189 (71.3)/76 (28.7) | 51 (70.8)/21 (29.2) |
| Mean age (yr) | 62.4 ± 9.5 | 63.3 ± 9.3 |
| Size of specimen (cm) | 4.27 ± 1.26 | 4.29 ± 1.48 |
| Pathologic report, n (%) | ||
| TALG | 51 (19.2) | 10 (13.9) |
| TAHG/CIS | 30 (11.3) | 9 (12.5) |
| Adenocarcinoma WD | 96 (36.2) | 24 (33.3) |
| Adenocarcinoma MD | 64 (24.2) | 19 (26.4) |
| Adenocarcinoma PD | 15 (5.7) | 7 (9.7) |
| Signet ring cell type | 8 (3.0) | 3 (4.2) |
| Other tumor1 | 1 (0.4) | 0 |
Table 2 Clinical aspects of gastric cancer in the two groups n (%)
| Clinical aspect | Group A (n = 210) | Group B (n = 53) |
| Tumor depth | ||
| Mucosal layer | 175 (83.3) | 43 (81.1) |
| Submucosal layer | 35 (16.7) | 10 (18.9) |
| Endoscopic appearance | ||
| Protruded/Elevated | 77 (36.7) | 21 (39.6) |
| Flat | 17 (8.1) | 4 (7.5) |
| Depressed | 59 (28.1) | 19 (35.8) |
| Mixed | 57 (27.1) | 9 (17.1) |
| Tumor location | ||
| Cardia, Fundus | 11 (5.2) | 4 (7.5) |
| Body | 54 (25.7) | 15 (28.3) |
| Angle | 29 (13.8) | 12 (22.6) |
| Antrum, Pylorus | 115 (54.8) | 21 (39.6) |
| Subtotal gastrectomy state | 1 (0.5) | 1 (1.9) |
Table 3 Comparison of procedure time and lesions in the two groups n (%)
| Group A (n = 265) | Group B (n = 72) | P | |
| Procedure time (min) | 59.63 ± 56.12 | 76.65 ± 70.75 | 0.043 |
| Fibrosis | NS | ||
| Yes | 42 (15.8) | 11 (15.3) | |
| No | 223 (84.2) | 61 (84.7) | |
| Specimen size | NS | ||
| < 3 cm | 26 (9.8) | 7 (9.7) | |
| 3 to < 5 cm | 177 (66.8) | 42 (65.3) | |
| ≥ 5 cm | 62 (23.4) | 18 (25) | |
| Ulcer lesion | 0.041 | ||
| Yes | 36 (13.6) | 5 (6.9) | |
| No | 229 (86.4) | 67 (93.1) |
Table 4 Resection type and complication rates in the two groups n (%)
| Group A (n = 265) | Group B (n = 72) | |
| Resection | ||
| En bloc | 254 (95.8) | 67 (93.1) |
| Piecemeal | 11 (4.2) | 5 (6.9) |
| Complication | ||
| None | 250 (94.3) | 70 (97.2) |
| Bleeding | 13 (4.9) | 1 (1.4) |
| Perforation | 2 (0.8) | 1 (1.4) |
Table 5 Comparison of ESD in the two groups n (%)
| ESD | Group A (n = 265) | Group B (n = 72) |
| Complete | 215 (81.1) | 53 (73.6) |
| Incomplete | 47 (17.7) | 18 (25) |
| Could not be evaluated | 3 (1.1) | 1 (1.4) |
- Citation: Kim HG, Cho JY, Bok GH, Cho WY, Kim WJ, Hong SJ, Ko BM, Kim JO, Lee JS, Lee MS, Shim CS. A novel device for endoscopic submucosal dissection, the Fork knife. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(43): 6726-6732
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v14/i43/6726.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.6726