Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs laparoscopic colorectal resection for early colorectal epithelial neoplasia

Table 1 Demographic background

	Lap colectomy	ESD	P value
Number of patients	55	65
Age (yr),	64.6 ± 9.9	68.6 ± 9.4	0.03
mean ± SD
Sex	Female: 27	Female: 27	0.41
	Male: 28	Male: 38
ASA	< 3 vs≥ 3 : 43 vs 12	< 3 vs≥ 3 : 48 vs 17	0.58
Size of lesion (cm),	3.4 ± 1.4	3.0 ± 1.2	0.07
mean ± SD
Location of lesion	Colon: 52	Colon: 59	0.43
	Rectum: 3	Rectum: 6

ASA: American Society of Anaesthesiology; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Table 2 Comparisons of the short-term outcome

	Lap colectomy	ESD	P value
OT/procedure time (min), mean ± SD	153 ± 43	113 ± 66	0.000
Post-op stay (d), median (range)	6 (3-41)	3 (1-13)	0.000
Days to diet, median (range)	4 (1-13)	2 (0-5)	0.000
Short-term complications	13/55 (23.6%)	7/65 (10.8%)	0.06
Pathology	Benign: 39	Benign: 56	0.04
	T1: 16	T1: 9

ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; OT: Operation time.

Table 3 Complications of laparoscopic colectomy (22 events in 13 patients)

	Number of complications	Surgical intervention required
Anastomotic leak	1	1
Mechanical small bowel obstruction	1	1
Wound infection	6	0
Chest infection	1	0
Urinary tract infection	4	0
Urinary retention	1	0
Ileus	6	0
Deep vein thrombosis	1	0
Confusion	1	0

Table 4 Performance indicators of endoscopic submucosal dissection

	n	(%)
En bloc resection	53	81.5
R0 resection	47	72.3
Perforation	5	7.7
bleeding	2	3.1

No other complication apart from perforation and bleeding were observed.