Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of a Large Laterally Spreading Tumor in the Rectum is a Minimally Invasive Treatment

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e5-e6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendi Yamazaki ◽  
Yutaka Saito ◽  
Masakatsu Fukuzawa
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Laterally Spreading Tumor ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection as minimally invasive treatment for superficial pharyngeal cancer: a phase II study (with video)

2015 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 1002-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noboru Hanaoka ◽  
Ryu Ishihara ◽  
Yoji Takeuchi ◽  
Motoyuki Suzuki ◽  
Shinji Otozai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Pharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

scholarly journals Progress on the Prevention of Esophageal Stricture after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peina Shi ◽  
Xiaoyun Ding
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Esophageal Stricture ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Esophageal Strictures ◽  
Current Therapies

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely accepted as an effective, minimally invasive treatment for superficial esophageal cancers. However, esophageal stricture often occurs in patients with large mucosal defects after ESD. In this review, we discuss various approaches recently researched to prevent esophageal strictures after ESD. These approaches can be classified as pharmacological treatments, esophageal stent treatments, and tissue engineering approaches. Most of the preventive approaches still have their limitations and require further research. With the improvement of current therapies, ESD can be more widely utilized as a minimally invasive treatment with minimal complications.

scholarly journals EAU, AUA and NICE Guidelines on Surgical and Minimally Invasive Treatment of Benign Prostate Hyperplasia: A Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines Using the AGREE-II Tool

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Dmitry Enikeev ◽  
Vincent Misrai ◽  
Enrique Rijo ◽  
Roman Sukhanov ◽  
Denis Chinenov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Minimally Invasive Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Agree Ii ◽  
Prostate Hyperplasia ◽  
Assessment Score ◽  
Nice Guideline ◽  
Agree Ii Tool

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> To critically appraise the methodological rigour of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) vis-à-vis BPH surgery as used by specialist research associations in the US, Europe and UK, and to compare whether the guidelines cover all or only some of the available treatments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The current guidelines issued by the EUA, AUA and NICE associations have been analyzed by 4 appraisers using the AGREE-II instrument. We also compared the recommendations given in the guidelines for surgical and minimally invasive treatment to find out which of these CPGs include most of the available treatment options. <b><i>Results:</i></b> According to the AGREE II tool, the median scores of domains were: domain 1 scope and purpose 66.7%, domain 2 stakeholder involvement 50.0%, domain 3 rigor of development 65.1%, domain 4 clarity of presentation 80.6%, domain 5 applicability 33.3%, domain 6 editorial independence 72.9%. The overall assessment according to AGREE II is 83.3%. The NICE guideline scored highest on 5 out of 6 domains and the highest overall assessment score (91.6%). The EAU guideline scored lowest on 4 out of 6 domains and has the lowest overall assessment score (79.1%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The analyzed CPGs comprehensively highlight the minimally invasive and surgical treatment options for BPH. According to the AGREE II tool, the domains for clarity of presentation and editorial independence received the highest scores. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains were ranked as the lowest. Improving the CPG in these domains may help to improve the clinical utility and applicability of CPGs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document