• Users Online:1606
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
EURO EUS MEETING
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 5

The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion


Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

Date of Web Publication27-Mar-2014

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Park C, Lee S, Oh M, Kim K. The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion. Endosc Ultrasound 2014;3, Suppl S1:5

How to cite this URL:
Park C, Lee S, Oh M, Kim K. The analysis of endoscopic ultrasonographic finding for esophageal subepithelial lesion. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Jan 27];3, Suppl S1:5. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2014/3/5/5/129491

Introduction: The number of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for esophageal subepithelial lesion (SEL) is on the increase recently. We retrospectively investigated the 230 patients who underwent EUS for esophageal SEL from July 2010 to June 2013. We analyzed EUS finding and assumptive diagnosis.

Results: Among 230 enrolled patients, subepithelial tumor (SET) was observed in 189 (82.2%) patients. Mean size of SET was 8.5 ± 5.0 mm and mean distance from incisor tooth to lesion was 29.2 ± 6.7 cm. The most common origin wall layer of the SET was muscularis mucosa (59.4%), followed by submucosa (15.8%) and muscularis propria (21.1%). 3.7% of SET was indetermined. In the analysis of primary assumptive diagnosis, 70.5% was leiomyoma, 16.8% was granular cell tumor, 6.8% was gastrointestinal stromal tumor, 1.6% was cyst and 2.1% was vascular ectasia. The tissue sample by biopsy was checked in only 14.2% (27 cases) and the result was mostly (81.5%) non-specific inflammation. 21 cases (9.1%) of 230 patients revealed extrinsic compression, 61.9% was compressed by vessel, 33.3% was due to spine and one case (4.8%) was bronchus. 20 patients (8.7%) was normal without SEL. 107 patients (46.5%) of enrolled 230 patients repeatedly underwent EUS at least twice but, 79.4% (85/107) of SET was no change in size or shape.

Conclusions: Esophageal SEL is mostly benign nature and misdiagnosed as extrinsic compression or normal variation easily. Thus, meticulous inspection is essential to distinguish SET and extrinsic compression. EUS is a good modality to examine esophageal SEL but, EUS is limited to accurate diagnosis of SET. The tissue acquisition for accurate diagnosis of SET is an important issue.

Status of the presenting author: Chief resident

The authors declare: No significant relationship.




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed780    
    Printed21    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded178    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]