Endoscopic submucosal dissection for small submucosal tumors of the rectum compared with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device

Table 1 Clinical findings and characteristics between endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device and endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)

	ESMR-L (n = 21)	ESD (n = 18)	P value
Age (yr, mean ± SD)	65.7 ± 14.2	61.2 ± 12.9	0.306
Sex (male/femal)	14/7	8/10	0.206
Tumor size (mm, mean ± SD)	4.9 ± 1.7	5.1 ± 2.1	0.681
Macroscopic type
Sessile	21 (100)	17 (94.4)	0.462
Semipedunculated	0 (0)	1 (5.6)
Location
Rb	18 (85.7)	17 (94.4)	0.609
Ra	3 (14.3)	1 (5.6)
History of previous biopsy	18 (85.7)	7 (38.9)	0.003

ESMR-L: Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Table 2 Clinical outcomes between endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device and endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)

	ESMR-L (n = 21)	ESD (n = 18)	P value
En bloc resection	21 (100)	18 (100)
Endoscopic complete resection	20 (95.2)	18 (100)	0.462
Histological evaluation
Vertical margin involvement	1 (4.8)	0 (0)	0.717
Lymphovascular invasion	0 (0)	1 (5.6)
Pathological findings
Carcinoid	20 (95.2)	15 (83.3)	0.318
Others	1 (4.8)	3 (16.7)
Complication
Post-operative bleeding	1 (4.8)	0 (0)	0.462
Procedure time (min, mean ± SD)	5.4 ± 1.7	14.7 ± 6.4	< 0.001
Hospitalization (d, mean ± SD)	2.8 ± 1.5	3.7 ± 0.9	0.024
Local recurrence	0 (0)	0 (0)
Distant recurrence	0 (0)	0 (0)

ESMR-L: Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.