“Underwater” endoscopic submucosal dissection: a novel method for resection in saline with a bipolar needle knife for colorectal epithelial neoplasia

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Effect of underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (UESD) on clinical outcomes as compared with conventional ESD (CESD) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for studies comparing UESD with CESD for colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were en-bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time (minutes), dissection speed (mm2/min), and adverse events. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean difference (SMD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1401 patients (UESD, 452; CESD, 949) were included. Mean patient age was 69 years, and 57% of patients were men. UESD had both a shorter procedure time (SMD, -1.33; 95% CI, -2.34 to -.32; P = .010) and greater dissection speed (SMD, 1.01; 95% CI, .35-1.68; P = .003) when compared with CESD. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to en-bloc resection (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, .37-3.41), R0 resection (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, .79-7.05), delayed bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, .65-2.74), perforation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, .64-2.00), and postresection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR, .38; 95% CI, .10-1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

UESD was faster in patients with colorectal lesions but had comparable rates of en-bloc resection, R0 resection, and adverse events when compared with CESD.

Comparative efficacy of different techniques for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced technique that can provide successful 'en-bloc' and R0 resection rate for large gastrointestinal lesions. To date, several ESD techniques have been proposed, but their comparative efficacy is still unclear.

METHODS

Major databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of different ESD techniques for the resection of colonic lesions. The primary outcomes were 'en-bloc' and R0 resection rates. The secondary outcome was the incidence of procedure-related AEs.

RESULTS

After selection of studies, 9 RCTs were included in the systematic review. On network meta-analysis for 'en-bloc' resection, pocked with traction ESD (PT-ESD) (RR=1.02; 95%CI=0.96-1.07) and pocket ESD (P-ESD) (RR=1.02; 95%CI=0.98-1.05) showed higher efficacy, whereas hybrid ESD (H-ESD) (RR=0.94; 95%CI=0.87-1.02) lower efficacy compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD). With regard to R0 resection, PT-ESD (RR=1.05; 95%CI=0.96-1.16) showed higher efficacy, and H-ESD (RR=0.97; 95%CI=0.84-1.13) lower efficacy compared to C-ESD. Concerning safety PT-ESD (RR=0.35; 95%CI=0.05-2.48) was associated with lower incidence of AEs, and H-ESD (RR=1.22; 95%CI=0.30-5.01) with higher incidence of AEs, compared to C-ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this network meta-analysis show a trend towards greater effectiveness and safety of PT-ESD for the removal of colonic lesions. H-ESD was associated with worse results and should be reserved as a rescue treatment, preferring other techniques.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with gel immersion technique for superficial esophageal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gel immersion (GI) endoscopy provides a good visual field in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, its clinical outcomes are poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between esophageal gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (GI-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) to determine the safety and efficacy of GI-ESD.

METHODS

The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.

Comparing underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large laterally spreading tumor: a randomized controlled trial (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging despite its usefulness. Underwater ESD (UESD) provides better traction and a clearer view of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (CESD). This study compared the efficiency of UESD and CESD for large (20-50 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).

METHODS

Preplanned sample size was calculated from our previous experience. As a result, 28 patients were required for the UESD group and CESD group each. The primary outcome was total procedure time; the secondary outcome was dissection speed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and a total of 28 patients were assigned to each group. The mean LST size was 31.6 mm and 31.3 mm in the UESD and CESD groups, respectively. Fibrosis was observed in 67.9% and 60.7% of patients in the UESD and CESD groups. Total procedure time (mean ± standard deviation) for the UESD group was significantly shorter than that for the CESD group (49.5 ± 20.3 minutes vs 75.7 ± 36.1 minutes; mean difference, -26.2 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -42.0 to -10.5 minutes). Dissection speed of the UESD group was significantly faster than that of the CESD group (21.9 ± 6.9 mm2/min vs 15.2 ± 7.3 mm2/min; mean difference, 6.7 mm2/min; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 10.4 mm2/min). There was no difference between groups in the R0 resection rate or en bloc resection rate. No perforations were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

UESD was superior to CESD in total procedure time and dissection speed. UESD can be recommended as the preferred method for the resection of large LSTs.

Underwater Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Diving into the Depths

The endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tract lesions embraces different types of techniques, ranging from conventional polypectomy/endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to the field of third-space endoscopy, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), full-thickness resection and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Parallelly, the advent of underwater techniques has served as an add-on for both basic and advanced procedures, since its first report in 2012. We aimed to provide a comprehensive update on the state of the art about the feasibility of underwater basic and advanced techniques for GI endoscopy. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has proved effective and safe in treating > 10 mm sessile or flat or all-size recurrent colonic lesions. Conversely, although data show good effectiveness and safety for <10 mm lesions, it is preferred when high-grade dysplasia is suspected, favouring cold snare polypectomy for all other cases. Moreover, promising data are emerging regarding the feasibility of U-ESD for difficult-to-resect colonic lesions. U-EMR represents a standard of care for treating < 25 mm superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. Data regarding oesophageal, gastric and ampullary lesions remains limited to small cohorts. Finally, using water immersion for POEM has shown a reduction in procedure time compared to the CO2 insufflation technique for vessel coagulation, albeit in a single-centre experience. Based on these results, U-EMR has become a standard for treating intermediate-size colonic and non-ampullary duodenal lesions, as highlighted also in the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. Promising results have been shown in third-space endoscopy studies, even though further prospective studies are awaited to standardise the technique for both ESD and POEM.

Novel perfusion system using continuous liquid-suction catheter attachment in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection with water pressure method (with video)

Water pressure method (WPM) is useful for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), characterized not only by underwater conditions but also by active water pressure via the waterjet function. However, the extension of the colorectum by injecting excess water and contaminating the operative field by stool and bleeding have been issues. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a novel perfusion system using a continuous liquid-suction catheter attachment (CLCA) in colorectal ESD with WPM. We retrospectively reviewed cases in which the perfusion system was used in colorectal ESD with WPM between August 2022 and September 2023. We evaluated clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, volume of injection by the waterjet function, volume of suction by the endoscope and CLCA, and concentration of floating matter in the operative field over time. Thirty-one cases were enrolled. The median lesion size was 30 (range, 15-100) mm. In all cases, en bloc resection was achieved without perforation. The median injection volume was 2312 (range, 1234-13,866) g. The median suction volumes by the endoscope and CLCA were 918 (range, 141-3162) and 1147 (range, 254-11,222) g, respectively. The median concentration of floating matter in the operative field (measured in 15 cases) was 15.3 (range, 7.3-112) mg/mL when the endoscope arrived at the lesion and 8.0 (range, 3.2-16) mg/mL after endoscopically washing at the beginning of the ESD. It ranged from 7.6 to 13.4 mg/dL every 20 min during ESD. This perfusion system could prevent the extension of the lumen and maintain a good field of view in colorectal ESD with WPM.

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors decreases the incidence of post-electrocoagulation syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) is a recently developed procedure that has the potential to prevent post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) owing to its heat-sink effect. We aimed to clarify whether U-ESD decreases the incidence of PECS compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD).

METHODS

A total of 205 patients who underwent colorectal ESD (C-ESD: 125; U-ESD: 80) were analyzed. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for patient backgrounds. Ten C-ESD and two U-ESD patients with muscle damage or perforation during ESD were excluded when comparing PECS. The primary outcome was to compare the incidence of PECS between the U-ESD and C-ESD groups (54 matched pairs). Secondary outcomes were to compare procedural outcomes between the C-ESD and U-ESD groups (62 matched pairs).

RESULTS

Among the 78 patients who underwent U-ESD, PECS occurred in only one patient (1.3%). Adjusted comparisons between the U-ESD and C-ESD groups demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of PECS in the U-ESD group (0% vs 11.1%; P = 0.027). Median dissection speed was significantly faster in the U-ESD than in the C-ESD group (10.9 mm2 /min vs 6.9 mm2 /min; P < 0.001). En bloc and complete resection rates were 100% in the U-ESD group. Although perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in one patient each (1.6%) as adverse events in the U-ESD group, there were no differences compared with the C-ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that U-ESD effectively decreases the incidence of PECS and is a faster and safer method for colorectal ESD.

Effectiveness of water pressure method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by novice endoscopists

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging for novice endoscopists. Not only the underwater conditions but also active use of water pressure with the water pressure method (WPM) can help widen the submucosal layer. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of WPM in colorectal ESD, especially for novice endoscopists. Methods This study was ex vivo and enrolled three novices. Each endoscopist performed conventional ESD (C-ESD) and ESD with WPM (WPM-ESD) 10 times on an excised bovine rectum. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (54 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 42-67 vs. 45 minutes, IQR 34-55, P  = 0.035). Although no significant difference in the activation time of electrical surgical unit (ESU) during the procedure was noted, the interval time during the procedure at which the ESU was not activated was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group (52 minutes, IQR 40-65 vs. 42 minutes, IQR 32-52, P  = 0.030) than in the C-ESD group. Moreover, the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (8.0 minutes, IQR 6.0-10 vs. 5.0 minutes, IQR 3.0-6.0, P  < 0.001). Conclusions The present study reveals that the WPM method significantly shortens the procedure times for novices in colorectal ESD, especially the interval time, which refers to the time spent creating the field of view, and the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Left colonic localization, non-granular morphology, and pit pattern independently predict submucosal fibrosis of naïve colorectal neoplasms before endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) represents the method of choice for removal of large colorectal neoplasms with suspected submucosal invasion. Presence and degree of submucosal fibrosis increases ESD duration and technical complexity, reduces the rate of curative resection and reduces safety profile. The aim of the study was to identify pre-procedural predictive factors of submucosal fibrosis in naïve colorectal neoplasms and to assess the impact of fibrosis on technical and clinical ESD outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive ESD performed between 2014 and 2021 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. For each patient, pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural data were recorded. Logistic regression was used to identify pre-procedural predictive factors for submucosal fibrosis. The study was approved by Institutional Reviewer Board and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04780256).

RESULTS

One hundred-74 neoplasms (46.6% rectum, 21.8% left colon, 31.6% right colon; size 34.9 ± 17.5 mm) from 169 patients (55.0% male; 69.5 ± 10.4-year-old) were included. 106 (60.9%) neoplasms were granular type laterally spreading tumor (LST-G), 42 (24.1%) non-granular (LST-NG), and 26 (14.9%) sessile; invasive pit pattern was observed in 90 (51.7%) lesions. No fibrosis (F0) mild (F1) and severe (F2) were observed in 62 (35.6%), 92 (52.9%), and 20 (11.5%), respectively. Left colonic localization [OR 3.23 (1.1-9.31)], LST-NG morphology [OR 5.84 (2.03-16.77)] and invasive pit pattern [OR 7.11 (3.11-16.23)] were independently correlated to submucosal fibrosis. Lower curative resection rate (59.8% vs. 93.5%, P < 0.001) was observed in case of fibrosis; the incidence of adverse events was higher in case of severe fibrosis (35.5%) compared to no (3.2%) and mild fibrosis (3.3%; P < 0.001). Procedure time was significantly impacted by presence and degree of fibrosis (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Left colonic localization, LST-NG morphology, and invasive pit pattern are independent predictors of fibrosis, affecting technical and clinical ESD outcomes. Pre-procedural stratification is pivotal to estimate procedure time, required operator's experience and advanced dissection techniques. Cecinato P et al. Left colonic localization, non-granular morphology, and pit pattern independently predict submucosal fibrosis of colorectal neoplasms before endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2023.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal neoplasia performed with a waterjet system-assisted knife: higher en-bloc resection rate than conventional technique

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique.

METHODS

The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD.

CONCLUSION

WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases

Background and study aims  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods  The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results  Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm ² /min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm ² /min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions  U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Safety and efficacy of water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors with submucosal fibrosis (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal neoplasms with submucosal fibrosis are the most challenging targets of endoscopic resection. Water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection (WP-ESD) is a recently introduced procedure that has several advantages over conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of WP-ESD for fibrotic colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study investigated 133 colorectal neoplasms expected to have submucosal fibrosis that were resected by WP-ESD or C-ESD between April 2012 and April 2020. Eighty-seven lesions after endoscopic or surgical treatment, 18 with biopsy scar with fold convergence and 28 in patients with ulcerative colitis, were included. The differences in treatment outcomes, including procedure time and adverse event proportions, between the WP-ESD and C-ESD groups were analyzed. The clinical course after perforation using WP-ESD was also evaluated, including postprocedural multidetector CT findings obtained immediately after WP-ESD.

RESULTS

Severe submucosal fibrosis was observed in 96 lesions (72.2%). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WP-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (43.5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 32.8-73] vs 72 minutes [IQR, 45-105]; P = .0041). The multivariate analysis revealed WP-ESD as an independent factor for a short procedure time (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-6.55). The proportions of post-ESD electrocoagulation syndrome (11.6% vs 13.1%) and perforation (20.4% vs 22.8%) were similar between the groups. Four of 11 patients with perforation who underwent WP-ESD showed fluid collection on postprocedural multidetector CT images.

CONCLUSIONS

WP-ESD can shorten procedure time for treating fibrotic colorectal neoplasms.

The impact of submucosal fatty tissue during colon endoscopic submucosal dissection in a western center

OBJECTIVES

Obesity is associated with submucosal fatty tissue. The main aim of this study was to assess the impact of submucosal fatty tissue on the success of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) in a western population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 125 consecutive C-ESDs performed between October 2015 and July 2017. Fatty tissue sign was defined as positive when the submucosal layer was covered with fatty tissue. The complexity of performing an ESD was assessed by the performing endoscopist, defined by the occurrence of intraprocedural perforation, inability to complete an en-bloc resection or a procedure time exceeding 180 min.

RESULTS

Fatty tissue sign positive was present in 44.8% of the procedures. There were 28 (22.4%) c-ESD defined as complex. Factors associated with complex ESD included; fatty tissue sign [odds ratio (OR) 12.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-81.9; P = 0.008], severe fibrosis (OR 148.6; 95% CI, 6.6-3358.0; P = 0.002), poor maneuverability (OR 267.4; 95% CI, 11.5-6212.5; P < 0.001) and polyp size ≥35 mm (OR 17.2; 95% CI, 2.6-113.8; P = 0.003). In patients demonstrating the fatty tissue sign, BMI and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) were higher (27.8 vs. 24.7; P < 0.001 and 0.56 vs. 0.49; P < 0.001, respectively) and en-bloc resection was achieved less frequently (76.8 vs. 97.1%, P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed higher risk of fatty tissue sign positive associated with WHtR ≥0.52 (OR 26.10, 95% CI, 7.63-89.35, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the fatty tissue sign contributes to procedural complexity during C-ESD. Central obesity correlates with the likelihood of submucosal fatty tissue and as such should be taken into account when planning procedures.

Bipolar-current needle-knife with a water jet function (Jet B-knife) shortens the procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure for the treatment of large colorectal tumors. In Japan, the ball-tip bipolar-current needle-knife (BB-knife) has been used in ESD as a safe device that minimizes the damage to deeper tissues of colorectal neoplasms. In May 2012, a BB-knife combined with a water jet function (Jet B-knife) was newly developed.

METHODS

This retrospective study was aimed at examining the effectiveness and safety of the Jet B-knife. The BB-knife was used in 276 lesions (BB-knife group), while the Jet B-knife was used in 245 lesions (Jet B-knife group). We evaluated tumor characteristics and the results of the ESD procedures, including the size of the resected tumor, histological diagnosis, time required for resection, frequency of using other electrical devices, en bloc resection rate, and incidence rate of associated complications. Then, the data obtained were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The histological evaluation of the resected tumors revealed that the incidence of cancer was not significantly different between the two groups. The median time required for resection was 103 min (45-255) in the BB-knife group and 51 min (28-210) in the Jet B-knife group. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the median tumor diameters were 23.1 mm (18-50) and 26.2 mm (20-60) in the BB-knife and Jet B-knife groups, respectively, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that short resection time (p < 0.001) and reduced use of hemostatic devices (p < 0.01) were independent favorable features of Jet B-knife. The en bloc resection rate and the perforation rate were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Jet B-knife may contribute to the development of a time-saving, cost-effective, and safe procedure for ESD of colorectal tumors.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.