| Title |
Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6057-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ningli Chai, Chen Du, Ying Gao, Xiaotong Niu, Yaqi Zhai, Enqiang Linghu, Yang Liu, Bo Yang, Zhongsheng Lu, Zhenjuan Li, Xiangdong Wang, Ping Tang |
| Abstract |
Surgical resection is considered the first treatment option for submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer while submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is proved to be a safe and effective method for treating SMTs. This study aimed to compare video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation (VATE) with STER for treating esophageal SMTs. Sixty-six patients with small esophageal SMTs were prospectively randomized from July 2014 to December 2015. After exclusion of 8 patients, 58 subjects scheduled for STER or VATE were enrolled. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and adverse events (AEs) data were collected and analyzed between STER and VATE. Forty-six males and 12 females with a mean age of 46.1 ± 9.4 years were randomized to the STER (n = 30) and VATE (n = 28) groups, respectively. Demographics and lesion features were similar between the two groups. Median procedure time was shorter in the STER group than the VATE group (44.5 vs. 106.5 min, P < 0.001); cost was lower in the STER group (4499.46 vs. 6137.32 USD, P = 0.010). Median decrease in hemoglobin levels post-procedure was - 1.6 g/L in the STER group and 14.7 g/L after VATE (P = 0.001). Lower postoperative pain scores were found in the STER group compared with the VATE group (2 vs. 4, P < 0.001). No recurrent or residual tumors were found in either group. En bloc resection rates, complete resection rates, hospital times, and post-procedure AEs were similar between two groups. The en bloc resection rates for SMTs < 20.0 mm were 100% in both groups while STER achieved only 71.4% en bloc resection rate for SMTs ≥ 20.0 mm. STER and VATE are comparably effective for esophageal SMTs; however, STER is superior to VATE with shorter operation time and decreased cost, and seems safer than VATE. STER is recommended for SMTs < 20.0 mm while VATE is recommended for SMTs with a transverse diameter > 35.0 mm. Clinical trail registration statement: This study is registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=4814 . The registration identification number is ChiCTR-TRC-14004759. The registration date is April 30, 2014. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,797
of 6,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,922
of 442,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#142
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.