Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms in proximity or extending to a diverticulum

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Effectiveness of Strategy-Focused Training in Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal ESD, an advanced minimally invasive treatment, presents technical challenges, with globally varying training methods. We analyzed the learning curve of ESD training, emphasizing preoperative strategies, notably gravity traction, to guide ESD instructors and trainee programs.

METHOD

This retrospective study included 881 cases guided by an experienced supervisor. Six trainees received "strategy-focused" instruction. To evaluate the number of ESD experiences in steps, the following phases were classified based on ESD experiences of each trainees: Phase 0 (0-50 ESD), Phase 1 (51-100 ESD), Phase 2 (101-150 ESD), and Phase 3 (151-200 ESD). Lesion background, outcomes, and safety were compared across phases. Factors contributing to technical difficulty in early (Phase 0 and 1) and late phases (Phase 2 and 3) were identified, along with the utility of traction ESD with device assistance.

RESULT

Treatment outcomes were favorable, with 99.8% and 94.7% en bloc resection and curative resection rates, respectively. Approximately 90% self-completion rate could be achieved after experiencing about 50 cases (92.7% in Phase 1), signifying proficiency growth despite increased case difficulty. In early phases, factors such as left-sided colon, LST-NG morphology, and severe fibrosis pose challenges. In late phases, LST-NG morphology, mild and severe fibrosis remained significant. Traction-assisted ESD, utilized in 3% of cases, comprised planned (1.1%) and rescue (1.9%) methods. Planned traction aided specific lesions, while rescue traction was common in the right colon.

CONCLUSION

"Strategy-focused" ESD training consistently yields successful outcomes, effectively adapting to varying difficulty factors in different proficient stages.

Feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for lesions in proximity to a colonic diverticulum

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for diverticulum-associated colorectal lesions is generally contraindicated because of the high risk of perforation. Several studies on patients with such lesions treated with ESD have been reported recently. However, the feasibility and safety of ESD for lesions in proximity to a colonic diverticulum (D-ESD) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of D-ESD.

Methods

D-ESD was defined as ESD for lesions within approximately 3 mm of a diverticulum. Twenty-six consecutive patients who underwent D-ESD were included. Two strategic approaches were used depending on whether submucosal dissection of the diverticulum-related part was required (strategy B) or not (strategy A). Treatment outcomes and adverse events associated with each strategy were analyzed.

Results

The en bloc resection rate was 96.2%. The rates of R0 and curative resection in strategies A and B were 80.8%, 73.1%, 84.6%, and 70.6%, respectively. Two cases of intraoperative perforation and one case of delayed perforation occurred. The delayed perforation case required emergency surgery, but the other cases were managed conservatively.

Conclusions

D-ESD may be a feasible treatment option. However, it should be performed in a high-volume center by expert hands because it requires highly skilled endoscopic techniques.