Intra-abdominal pressure during endoscopic full-thickness resection comparing manual and automatic control insufflation: a block-randomized porcine study

Endoscopic Resection with One-Port Placement: A Newly Developed Technique for the Safe Management of Advanced Endoscopic Resection for Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance (pure EFTR) is an emerging, less invasive treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the technique has seldom been performed outside China because of concerns regarding pneumoperitoneum, maintenance of endoscopic view, and endoscopic suturing. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection with one-port placement (EROPP) for gastric GISTs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 17 patients with gastric GISTs originating from the muscularis propria who underwent EROPP between 2019 and 2022. One camera port was inserted in the umbilicus before initiating the endoscopic procedure to maintain intra-abdominal pressure, which was monitored and adjusted via this port. While allowing for conversion to laparoscopic surgery if needed, EFTR was performed as follows: (1) circumferential incision of the mucosal and submucosal layers around the lesion was performed by typical endoscopic submucosal dissection; (2) an intentional perforation and subsequent seromuscular resection was made using dental floss and an endo-clip for traction; and (3) closure of the gastric full-thickness defect was performed with an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) after peroral retrieval of the specimen. We retrospectively assessed the short-term outcomes and safety.

RESULTS

All procedures were completed successfully without conversion to laparoscopic surgery. The median size of the resected tumors was 23 mm (range, 8-35 mm), the median resection time was 36 min (range, 22-95 min), and closure time was 18 min (range, 10-45 min). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were 100% and 88%, respectively. In 2 cases, another port was added to aspirate the leaking fluid or check the condition of the endoscopic closure. All gastric defects were endoscopically closed, mainly using OTSCs. The recovery course for all patients was uneventful, and no adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

EROPP is a safe and minimally invasive treatment for gastric GISTs and appears to be suitable for introducing EFTR procedures.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

Translation from manual to automatic endoscopic insufflation enhanced by a pressure limiter

BACKGROUND

Optimal visualization and safety have always been essential in performing any type of endoscopic surgery. However, the safety of automatic gastrointestinal (GI) insufflation has yet to be thoroughly studied, especially when combined with manual insufflation. The current study aimed to verify whether the pressure limiter could lower GI endoluminal pressure during endoscopic procedures and affect the behavioral patterns of endoscopists.

METHODS

A preclinical blinded trial was conducted on endoscopists who had no knowledge regarding the presence of the pressure limiter that prevents a GI endoluminal pressure above 25 mmHg. Endoscopists in group A performed esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with our insufflation device equipped with the pressure limiter, whereas those in group B performed the same procedure without the pressure limiter. During all procedures, endoluminal pressure was continuously monitored. The primary endpoint of the current study was to measure the endoluminal pressure with or without the pressure limiter during esophageal ESD, while the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of the pressure limiter on intraesophageal pressure and perioperative outcomes during esophageal ESD. A questionnaire survey was conducted after each session.

RESULTS

A total of 79 endoscopists were included in this randomized control study. Group A had significantly lower endoluminal pressure than group B (10.6 ± 4.61 vs. 16.25 ± 7.51 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05). Although two pigs in group B died from tension pneumothorax, none in group A died. Evaluation of lumen expansion, ease of aspiration, and visual field reproducibility were poorer in group A than in group B, although all fell within the acceptable range. Subjective evaluation of usability was divided into two categories, Excellent/Good and Poor/Bad, with no significant differences in any of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

This preclinical study showed that endoscopic treatment with an automatic insufflation system could be performed at lower endoluminal pressure with a pressure limiter, which had no adverse effects on the endoscopist's feels on endoscopic procedures with the device.

Optimization of insufflation and pressure control in third-space endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Third-space endoscopy requires a delicate and accurate insufflation technique to secure the endoscopic visualization and maintain the working space. However, optimal third-space insufflation parameters have yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to assess: (1) the diversity of endoluminal third-space pressure by manual insufflation, and (2) the performance of the insufflation settings for third-space endoscopy.

METHODS

A submucosal tunnel was created in the upper posterior wall of the porcine stomach. Using two-channel esophagogastroduodenoscopy, one channel was used for insufflation and the other was used for pressure measurement. Experiment 1 Endoluminal submucosal tunnel pressure was measured in a 10-cm submucosal tunnel of a single porcine. Six board-certified endoscopists in turn maintained what they considered sufficient exposure under manual insufflation. Experiment 2 Endoluminal submucosal tunnel pressure and number of insufflations were measured using the pressure-regulated insufflation device; the differences in the submucosal tunnel length (long: 10-cm, short: 4-cm) and the insufflation route diameter (large: 3.8-mm, small: 2.2-mm) were compared.

RESULTS

Experiment 1 The endoluminal submucosal tunnel pressure profiles during third-space endoscopy varied between endoscopists. Experiment 2 Longer submucosal tunnels and larger insufflation route diameters lead to stable endoluminal submucosal tunnel pressure. The gap with the preset pressure of the insufflator and endoluminal pressure narrowed, and the required number of insufflations decreased with longer tunnel length and larger route diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

The pressure dynamics in third-space endoscopy differed among endoscopists. Longer submucosal tunnels and larger insufflation route diameters lead to stable endoluminal submucosal tunnel pressure.