Efficacy and suitable indication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a balloon-assisted endoscope

Device-assisted traction methods in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and options for difficult cases

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure has a longer procedure time and higher perforation rate than endoscopic mucosal resection owing to technical complications, including a poor field of vision and inadequate tension for the submucosal dissection plane. Various traction devices were developed to secure the visual field and provide adequate tension for the dissection plane. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated that traction devices reduce colorectal ESD procedure time compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD), but they had limitations, including a single-center fashion. The CONNECT-C trial was the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the C-ESD and traction device-assisted ESD (T-ESD) for colorectal tumors. In the T-ESD, one of the device-assisted traction methods (S–O clip, clip-with-line, and clip pulley) was chosen according to the operator’s discretion. The median ESD procedure time (primary endpoint) was not significantly different between C-ESD and T-ESD. For lesions ≥ 30 mm in diameter or in cases treated by nonexpert operators, the median ESD procedure time tended to be shorter in T-ESD than in C-ESD. Although T-ESD did not reduce ESD procedure time, the CONNECT-C trial results suggest that T-ESD is effective for larger lesions and nonexpert operators in colorectal ESD. Compared with esophageal and gastric ESD, colorectal ESD has some difficulties, including poor endoscope maneuverability, which may be associated with prolonged ESD procedure time. T-ESD may not effectively improve these issues, but a balloon-assisted endoscope and underwater ESD may be promising options and these methods can be combined with T-ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for tumors involving the ileocecal valve with extension into the terminal ileum: a multicenter study from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for tumors extending into the terminal ileum remain obscure. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for tumors involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) with extension into the terminal ileum.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (40 men; mean age, 67 years) with 68 tumors involving the ICV that were resected by ESD between December 2013 and December 2018 were included and classified into Group A (21 tumors with extension into the terminal ileum) and Group B (47 tumors without extension). ESD outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The clinical features of the patients and tumors were not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate (95% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.79), R0 resection rate (90% and 89%, respectively; p = 0.89), procedure time (95 ± 54 min and 94 ± 69 min, respectively; p = 0.64), postoperative bleeding rate (5% and 3%, respectively; p = 0.79), intraoperative perforation rate (0% and 4%, respectively; p = 0.34), delayed perforation rate (0% and 0%, respectively), or postoperative symptomatic stenosis rate (0% and 0%, respectively) between Groups A and B. No specific factors related to the outcomes of ESD were found by subgroup analysis according to the dominance and degree of circumference of the ICV. Local recurrence was observed in 1 patient in Group A who was retreated using ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for tumors involving the ICV with extension into the terminal ileum is safe and effective.

Efficacy of single-balloon overtube for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the proximal colon: A propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

A single-balloon overtube (SBO) can improve poor scope operability during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of SBO for ESD in the proximal colon and the predictive factors for cases in which SBO is useful.

METHODS

A total of 88 tumors located in the proximal colon resected by balloon-assisted ESD (BA-ESD) using SBO and 461 tumors resected by conventional ESD (C-ESD) between June 2015 and November 2020 were considered. Seventy-eight tumors each in the BA-ESD and C-ESD groups were matched by propensity score matching. ESD outcomes were compared between the groups, and a decision tree analysis was performed to explore the predictive factors for cases in which SBO is useful.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in the major outcomes such as en bloc resection rate (95% vs. 99%, p = 0.17), R0 resection rate (92% vs. 96%, p = 0.30), mean dissection speed (16 mm²/min vs. 16 mm²/min, p = 0.53), and intraoperative perforation rate (5% vs. 6%, p = 0.73). Even when considering cases with poor preoperative scope operability, there were no significant differences between the groups. Comparison of tumors ≥40 mm in diameter between the groups confirmed that the intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the BA-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (0% vs. 24%, p = 0.0188).

CONCLUSION

SBO is useful for ESD of tumors ≥40 mm in diameter in the proximal colon to prevent intraoperative perforation, which usually has a long procedure time.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Methods of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method (P-ESD), traction-assisted method (T-ESD), and hybrid method (H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3,002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than that of C-ESD, P-ESD, and T-ESD (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]; RR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]; RR = 8.28, 95% CI [2.50, 27.42]). Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter (MD = -21.83, 95% CI [-34.76, -8.90]; MD = -23.8, 95% CI [-32.55, -15.06]). Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than that of P-ESD (MD = -18.74, 95% CI [-31.93, -5.54]). The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than that of C-ESD (MD = 6.26, 95% CI [2.29, 10.23]).

CONCLUSION

P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.

Acceptability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for sessile serrated lesions: comparison with non-sessile serrated lesions

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesions (SSL) are major precursor lesions of serrated pathway cancers, and appropriate treatment may prevent interval colorectal cancer. Studies have reported the outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for SSL; however, there are insufficient reports on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the characteristics and outcomes of SSL and compared them to those of non-SSL in ESD. Patients and methods  We reviewed 370 consecutive cases in 322 patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2016 and March 2020 at our hospital. There were 267 0-IIa lesions that were stratified into 41 SSL and 226 non-SSL (intramucosal cancer, adenoma) cases. We used propensity matching to adjust for the variances in the factors affecting treatment between the SSL and non-SSL groups. Results  In the baseline cases, young women and proximal colon tumor location were significantly more common in the SSL group. There were no statistically significant differences between the SSL and non-SSL groups in terms of en bloc resection rate (97.6 % vs. 99.6 %; P  = 0.28), R0 resection rate (92.7 % vs. 93.4 %; P  = 0.74), perforation (0 % vs. 0.9 %; P  > 0.99), and postoperative bleeding (2.4 % vs. 1.8 %; P  = 0.56). Thirty-eight pairs were matched using propensity score, and the median dissection speed (12 vs. 7.7 cm ² /h; P  = 0.0095) was significantly faster in the SSL than in the non-SSL group. Conclusions  ESD for SSL was safely performed, and SSL was smoother to remove than non-SSL. ESD might be an acceptable endoscopic treatment option for SSL.