A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for large lesser gastric curvature superficial neoplasms

The Impact of Traction Methods on Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Efficacy for Gastric Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms can be challenging due to limited traction and visualization. The efficacy of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (TA-ESD) continues to require additional validation. This study aims to explore the safety and efficiency of TA-ESD for early gastric neoplasms located at varying sites, in comparison with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using databases up until August 2022. The outcome measures procedure time, en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, and procedure-related adverse event rate. We calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) for these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the TA-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group (MD - 14.9, 95% CI - 21.78 to - 8.03, I2 = 83%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis revealed that mean procedure times for lesions on the greater curvature and upper/middle of the stomach were significantly shorter in the TA-ESD group - 19.2 min (95% CI - 27.75 to - 10.65, I2 = 12%, p < 0.0001) and - 7.35 min (95% CI - 35.4 to - 1.15, p = 0.04), respectively. The en bloc resection and complete resection rates were comparable between the two groups. The rate of perforation was significantly lower in the TA-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.85, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the potential benefits of TA-ESD over C-ESD in treating patients with early-stage gastric tumors, highlighting its safety and efficacy. The findings indicate a significant reduction in procedure times at challenging stomach sites with TA-ESD in comparison to C-ESD.

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.

Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy

Submucosal endoscopy (third-space endoscopy) can be defined as an endoscopic procedure performed in the submucosal space. This procedure is novel and has been utilized for delivery to the submucosal space in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases, such as a tumor, achalasia, gastroparesis, and subepithelial tumors. The main submucosal endoscopy includes peroral endoscopic myotomy, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy, Zenker peroral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunneling for endoscopic resection, and endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection. Submucosal endoscopy has been used as a viable alternative to surgical techniques because it is minimally invasive in the treatment and diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. However, there is limited evidence to prove this. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding submucosal endoscopy while exploring the possible future clinical applications in this field. As our understanding of these procedures improves, the future of submucosal endoscopy could be promising in the fields of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Usefulness of the combined orthodontic rubber band and clip method for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Effective traction is an important prerequisite for successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The combined orthodontic rubber band (ORB) and clip method was effective in colorectal cancer ESD. To date, the method was not reported in gastric ESD. This study aimed to investigate its efficacy and safety for gastric neoplasms ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 118 patients with gastric neoplasms treated by ESD from November 2020 to April 2022, 43 by ORB-ESD and 75 by the conventional ESD. The primary outcome measure was the ESD procedure time. Clinical data on efficacy and safety were also collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) matched the patients in both groups.

RESULTS

PSM successfully matched 31 pairs of patients. The ORB-ESD operation time was shorter (median [interquartile range], 35 [30-48] vs. 49 [40-70] min, P < 0.001) and dissection speed was higher (median [interquartile range], 22.6 [14.4-29.3] vs. 13.5 [9.6-17.9] mm²/min, P < 0.001) than in the conventional ESD. The groups were similar in muscular injury rate, frequency and time of use of thermal hemostatic forceps, postoperative adverse events, en bloc resection, and R0 resection rate (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the conventional ESD, ORB-ESD significantly reduced the procedure time and increased the dissection speed, proving beneficial to gastric ESD.

Comparison between endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction: a case-matched controlled study of a single center from China

BACKGROUND

So far, little evidence is available for the comprehensive comparison of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction (EGJ).

METHODS

EGJ superficial neoplasia patients with ESTD treatment between January, 2021 and August, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and individually matched at 1:1 ratio with those with ESD treatment according to lesion size, specimen area and lesion location, forming ESTD and ESD group, respectively. A sample size of 17 patients was collected for each group. Treatment outcomes including resection time, specimen area, and resection speed as well as occurrence of complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with ESD group, ESTD group got shorter resection time (111.00 ± 11.70 min for ESD group vs. 71.59 ± 6.18 min for ESTD group, p = 0.008) and faster section speed (0.23 ± 0.03 cm2/min for ESD group vs. 0.37 ± 0.06 cm2/min for ESTD group, p = 0.012). No complication was found to occur in ESTD group, while 1 patient with MP damage and 1 with delayed bleeding was found in ESD group.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of EGJ superficial neoplasia, ESTD is a safer and more effective and reliable endoscopic technique compared with ESD.

The Pocket-Creation Method Facilitates Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms Along the Lesser Curvature at the Gastric Angle

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial gastric lesions located along the lesser curvature at the gastric angle is a challenging situation due to paradoxical movement and a protruding angle. The pocket-creation method (PCM) can overcome this difficulty by stabilizing the tip of the endoscope in the pocket and minimizing insufflation of the stomach, which enables horizontal and straight dissection. This study aims to clarify whether the PCM improves the technical outcomes of ESD of superficial gastric neoplasms along the lesser curvature at the angle.

Methods

From October 2006 to June 2021, 158 gastric lesions along the lesser curvature at the angle were resected with needle-type knives. We retrospectively reviewed the records and divided them into the PCM group (n = 61) and the conventional method (CM) group (n = 97). The primary outcome measurement was dissection speed (in mm²/min).

Results

The two groups were not significantly different for baseline characteristics such as macroscopic type and size except for the proportion of adenomas. The proportion of expert endoscopists was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.141). The dissection speed was significantly faster in the PCM group than in the CM group (P = 0.001). There were no holes in the resected specimens in the PCM group, while five lesions in the CM group (5%) had a hole (P = 0.182). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusions

This is the first study to show that the PCM outperforms the CM for ESD of lesions located along the lesser curvature at the gastric angle. The PCM facilitated ESD of these lesions by significantly increasing dissection speed when a needle-type knife is used with no increase in adverse events.

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Evidence that comprehensively compares the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) is limited.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and June 2018, 143 rectal LSTs in 143 patients who had undergone either ESD (n = 84) or ESTD (n = 59) were included in the study. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and 50 pairs were selected. The data on patient demographics, treatment information, pathology reports, adverse events and follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

Before PSM, the median specimen area was significantly larger in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (12.56 cm² vs. 6.32 cm², respectively; p < 0.001). The median dissection speed was significantly higher in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (24.53 mm²/min vs. 15.16 mm²/min, respectively; p < 0.001). After PSM, the median dissection speed was significantly higher in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (23.80 mm²/min vs. 17.12 mm²/min, respectively; p < 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of ESTD (p < 0.001) and larger specimen area (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESTD appears to be a safe and effective method to treat rectal LSTs. Compared with ESD, ESTD appears to achieve a higher dissection speed for rectal LSTs.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is a new treatment for superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors. However, its safety and efficacy for treating these lesions is still uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESTD with those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and the Web of Science, were systematically searched for articles published up to 1 April 2020. The primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates of the lesions. The secondary outcomes included operation time, speed of dissection, complication and recurrence rates. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The complete and en bloc resection rates of early superficial esophageal lesions as well as the en bloc resection rate of early superficial gastric lesions were similar between the ESTD and ESD groups. Compared with the ESD group, the ESTD group had a higher en bloc resection rate for early superficial gastric lesions. A faster dissection speed was observed in both superficial esophageal and gastric lesions. In gastric lesions, the operation time of the ESTD group was shorter than that of the ESD group, while it did not differ for esophageal lesions. There were no obvious differences in bleeding and perforation rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

As an endoscopic technique for treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal lesions, ESTD is as safe as and more effective than ESD, especially for gastric lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers: outcomes of 799 consecutive cases in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs), but because of the obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting it is time consuming and poses high risk of perforation and bleeding in large lesions. In endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) technique, good visualization of the submucosal layer can be achieved in the tunnel, it is, therefore, easy to discern the muscularis propria and visualize the vessels in the submucosal area. This study aims to evaluate the technical feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ESTD in comparison with conventional ESD (cESD) technique for treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study of 799 consecutive patients with EGCs who underwent ESD. ESTD (n = 141) were performed between 2015 and 2018 and cESD (n = 658) were performed between 2003 and 2015. Using propensity scores to strictly balance the significant variables, we compared treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching, we enrolled 444 patients (n = 111 in ESTD group, n = 333 in cESD group). The resection speeds for lesions of the ESTD were faster than those of cESD (19.3 mm²/min versus 17.7 mm²/min, P = 0.009). There was no need to use additional countertraction by clip-with-line technique or snare for the submucosal dissection in the ESTD procedure. The incidence of perforation was significantly higher in the cESD group (6.0%) than in the ESTD group (0.9%) (P = 0.035). Among 799 patients, four patients who received non-curative ESD had recurrence of gastric cancer.

CONCLUSION

ESTD technique is a safe and feasible treatment procedure for EGCs. It presents many theoretical advantages and may have definite benefits over cESD. ESTD may, therefore, be considered as the standard endoscopic treatment for EGCs.

Current status of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions

INTRODUCTION

With the widespread application of screening endoscopy and development of endoscopy-related instruments, more and more gastrointestinal cancers are detected in an early stage. Endoscopic resection is a preferred method for selected patients with superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard method for its ability to perform en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. ESD can be performed in a conventional or tunneling way, and the latter is termed endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD).

AREA COVERED

In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review on ESTD for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. We mainly focus on technical details, safety and efficacy of ESTD for esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform ESTD.

EXPERT OPINION

The best indication of ESTD is large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (circumferential extent > 1/3 and longitudinal extent > 3 cm). Although ESTD has shown promising primary results for superficial gastric and colorectal neoplastic lesions, it is technically difficult and should be attempted only in experienced hands. Post-treatment stricture is a major concern, and preventive measures are recommended for patients with high risk of post-ESTD stricture.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Presently, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) has been a novel therapy for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENL), especially for circumferential neoplastic lesions. A number of studies have reported the clinical application of ESTD with promising outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESTD for SENL .

METHODS

From 2013 to November 2018, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to determine studies reporting ESTD treatment of SENL. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for en bloc resection, R0 resection and complication of ESTD. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare the clinical outcomes of ESTD with ESD for SENL.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies involving 494 patients with 518 esophageal neoplastic lesions were included in our study. WPR for en bloc resection and R0 resection of ESTD was 97.0% (95% CI: 94.7-98.3%) and 84.1% (95% CI: 80.5-87.1%), respectively. WPR for complication was 40.0% (95% CI: 25.8-56.1%). Two studies with 265 patients compared the performance of ESTD with ESD. Pooled RR for en bloc resection and R0 resection was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.14, P = 0.42) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.73), respectively. Pooled RR for complication was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-1.01, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that ESTD is effective for treating SENL with high en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate, but accompanying by a relatively high complications.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The emerging endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is becoming an alternative method for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to search relevant studies through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before 1 December 2018. Studies relating to ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions were included. Rates of effectiveness (en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate), rates of feasibility (muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate, and emphysema rate), and rates of follow-up (recurrence rate and stricture rate) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

RESULTS

Six studies including 414 patients and 436 superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions that underwent ESTD were available for analysis. The pooled estimates of en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate were 98% (95% CI 95.8-99.0%), 87.0% (95% CI 78.2-92.5%), and 87.6% (95% CI 67.4-96.0%), respectively. The pooled outcomes of muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate and emphysema rate were 19.1% (95% CI 9.8-33.8%), 2.2% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%), 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.5%), and 12.2% (95% CI 4.3-29.9%), respectively. Finally, the pooled results of recurrence and stricture were 4.7% (0.9-20.5%) and 20.9% (11.3-35.2%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ESTD appears to be an effective and feasible approach for treating superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. However, future research is needed for new and comprehensive methods to decrease the stricture rate after ESTD.

Consensus on the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique

With the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique (DETT), many diseases that previously would have been treated by surgery are now endoscopically curable by establishing a submucosal tunnel between the mucosa and muscularis propria (MP). Through the tunnel, endoscopic diagnosis or treatment is performed for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP, and even outside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. At present, the tunnel technique application range covers the following: (1) Treatment of lesions originating from the mucosal layer, e.g., endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for oesophageal large or circular early-stage cancer or precancerosis; (2) treatment of lesions from the MP layer, per-oral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection, etc.; and (3) diagnosis and treatment of lesions outside the GI tract, such as resection of lymph nodes and benign tumour excision in the mediastinum or abdominal cavity. With the increasing number of DETTs performed worldwide, endoscopic tunnel therapeutics, which is based on DETT, has been gradually developed and optimized. However, there is not yet an expert consensus on DETT to regulate its indications, contraindications, surgical procedure, and postoperative treatment. The International DETT Alliance signed up this consensus to standardize the procedures of DETT. In this consensus, we describe the definition, mechanism, and significance of DETT, prevention of infection and concepts of DETT-associated complications, methods to establish a submucosal tunnel, and application of DETT for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP and outside the GI tract (indications and contraindications, procedures, pre- and postoperative treatments, effectiveness, complications and treatments, and a comparison between DETT and other operations).