The efficacy of the submucosal injection of lidocaine during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Efficacy of lidocaine injection method for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative body movements are one of the causes of difficulty in performing esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under conscious sedation. The use of local anesthetics as local injection materials during ESD may overcome this difficulty. We clinically evaluated the lidocaine injection method (LIM) in the submucosa during esophageal ESD.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients who underwent esophageal ESD under conscious sedation from June 2018 to May 2021 were included in this study. In the LIM group, lidocaine was used for submucosal injection during ESD; in the control group, ESD was performed without lidocaine. The primary outcome was the presence of body movements.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The incidence of body movements was significantly lower in the LIM group (12% [3/25]) than in the control group (48% [12/25]; P = 0.01). The median additional dose of midazolam was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.5-4 mg) in the LIM group and 4 mg (IQR: 3-6 mg) in the control group, which was significantly lower in the LIM group (P < 0.01). The median visual analog scale score for endoscopist satisfaction was 7 (IQR: 5-8) in the LIM group and 5 (IQR: 4-6.5) in the control group, which was significantly higher in the LIM group.

CONCLUSIONS

LIM during esophageal ESD reduced body movements while decreasing the level of sedation. Therefore, LIM during esophageal ESD is an option for maintaining good sedation (UMIN000032804).

Fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the water pressure method

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the duodenum is challenging. The water pressure method (WP-ESD) has been developed with a decreased rate of perforation. However, details of perioperative adverse events of WP-ESD are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency and related factors of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during WP-ESD.

METHODS

A chart-based retrospective analysis was performed on 43 patients who underwent duodenal WP-ESD. The saline volume given into the body was calculated in all cases. All adverse events during WP-ESD until 6 weeks were extracted, and factors related to intraoperative fecal incontinence or oral regurgitation were analyzed. The frequency of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation was also compared to those of 83 conventional ESD cases.

RESULTS

In WP-ESD, intraoperative fecal incontinence occurred in 12 (28%), oral regurgitation in six (14%), and aspiration pneumonia in one patient. For fecal incontinence, the infusion speed (saline volume divided by resection time) around 17 mL/min was a significant factor in multivariable analysis. For oral regurgitation, only tumor size was a significant factor in univariate analysis (P = 0.027). Significant difference was observed in the frequency of fecal incontinence between WP-ESD and conventional ESD (28% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), but no difference was observed in oral regurgitation or aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative fecal incontinence is a unique adverse event of WP-ESD related to the infusion speed. WP-ESD did not pose a risk for oral regurgitation, but we should be aware of the risk in large tumor cases.