Comparisons of outcomes between ProKnife injection endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large gastric lesions in ex vivo porcine model study: A randomized controlled trial

Comparison of hemostatic ability between spray coagulation and forced coagulation modes in endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric neoplasms: a study protocol for multicenter randomized controlled trial (Spray-G trial)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for early gastric neoplasms (EGN). Controlling intraoperative bleeding is crucial for ensuring safe and reliable procedures. ESD using the spray coagulation mode (SCM-ESD) has been developed to control bleeding more effectively than ESD using the conventional forced coagulation mode (FCM-ESD). This study aims to compare the hemostatic efficacies of SCM-ESD and FCM-ESD.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized, open-label superiority trial will be conducted in five Japanese institutions. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of intramucosal EGC will be randomized to undergo either SCM-ESD or FCM-ESD. The primary outcome measure is the completion of ESD with an electrosurgical knife alone, without the use of hemostatic forceps. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of hemostasis using hemostatic forceps, procedure time, curability, and safety. A total of 130 patients will be enrolled in this study.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide evidence on the hemostatic efficacy of SCM-ESD compared with FCM-ESD in patients with intramucosal EGN, potentially improving the safety and reliability of ESD procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registration (UMIN-CTR) as UMIN000040518. The reception number is R000054009.

Impact of Traction Direction in Traction-Assisted Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (with Videos)

BACKGROUND

The impact of traction direction in traction-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been adequately investigated. A clip with line (CWL) is a classical single-directional traction device. In contrast, a spring and loop with clip (SLC; S-O clip) is a newly developed multidirectional traction device.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of traction direction in gastric ESD by comparing the procedure-related outcomes of CWL-assisted ESD (CWL-ESD) and SLC-assisted ESD (SLC-ESD).

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 140 patients with superficial gastric neoplasms who underwent SLC-ESD or CWL-ESD by a single ESD expert during November 2017-September 2020. The traction direction was classified based on the endoscopic finding in the following five categories: proximal, diagonally proximal, vertical, diagonally distal, and distal. In SLC-ESD, we set vertical traction, using the multidirectional traction function. Propensity score matching was conducted to compensate for the differences in lesion size, injection function of electrosurgical knife, ulcerative lesion, lesion location, and lesion position. The primary outcome was gastric ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching created 42 pairs. The median gastric ESD procedure time in the SLC-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the CWL-ESD group (28.3 min vs. 51.0 min, P = 0.022). All traction direction in the SLC-ESD group was vertical, while only 16.7% in the CWL-ESD group. En bloc resection was attained without perforation in all the patients in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SLC can provide vertical traction, which reduces the gastric ESD procedure time. Multidirectional traction devices can provide vertical traction in most cases of gastric ESD, unlike single-directional traction devices. Vertical traction may reduce the gastric ESD procedure time.