Endoscopic submucosal dissection of large polyps in the right colon using an endoscopic snare with a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform: an ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model

Prospective, randomized controlled study evaluating a double-balloon interventional endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en-bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; P < .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm2/h, P < .001). En-bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, P = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (P < .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en-bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03846609.).

ESD with elastic ring traction is more effective and safer than conventional ESD in large proximal colon neoplastic lesions: a retrospective cohort study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD), especially ESD in proximal colon, has always been challenging. We invented a novel elastic ring as a traction method to facilitate ESD. Our study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of ESD with in vivo traction and conventional ESD without traction in the treatment of large proximal colon neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with large (≥ 20 mm in their maximal diameter) proximal colon neoplastic lesions who underwent ESD with in vivo elastic ring traction or conventional ESD without traction in our endoscopy center between June 2018 and April 2022 by one experienced endoscopist.

RESULTS

The ESD with traction group has lower overall complication rate and lower perforation rate than those in the conventional ESD group (0% vs 14.71%, P = 0.021; 0% vs 11.76%, P = 0.048, respectively), and the differences are statistically significant. Although there are no significant differences in the rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection and bleeding rate, ESD with traction group still had higher en bloc resection and R0 resection rates and lower bleeding rate than conventional ESD group without traction (100% vs 94.12%, P = 0.226; 94.59% vs 85.29%, P = 0.189, 8.82% vs 2.70%, P = 0.276, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ESD with elastic ring traction is potentially more effective and safer than conventional ESD in the treatment of large proximal colon neoplastic lesions. Further large, prospective controlled studies are needed to fully evaluate this novel method.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms at "Challenging Sites" Using a Double-Balloon Endoluminal Interventional Platform: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at "challenging sites" such as the cecum, ascending colon, and colonic flexures could be difficult even for expert endoscopists due to poor endoscope stability/maneuverability, steep angles, and thinner wall thickness. A double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (EIP) has been introduced in the market to fasten and facilitate ESD, particularly when located at difficult sites. Here, we report our initial experience with an EIP comparing the outcomes of an EIP versus standard ESD (S-ESD) at "challenging sites".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on consecutive patients with colonic lesions located in the right colon and at flexures who underwent ESD in our tertiary referral center between March 2019 and May 2023. Endoscopic and clinical outcomes (technical success, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, procedure time, time to reach the lesion, and adverse events) and 6-month follow-up outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 139 consecutive patients with lesions located at these challenging sites were enrolled (EIP: 31 and S-ESD: 108). Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. En bloc resection was achieved in 92.3% and 93.5% of patients, respectively, in the EIP and S-ESD groups. Both groups showed a comparable R0 resection rate (EIP vs. S-ESD: 92.3% vs. 97.2%). In patients undergoing EIP-assisted ESD, the total procedure time was shorter (96.1 [30.6] vs. 113.6 [42.3] minutes, p = 0.01), and the mean size of the resected lesions was smaller (46.2 ± 12.7 vs. 55.7 ± 17.6 mm, p = 0.003). The time to reach the lesion was significantly shorter in the EIP group (1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 8.2 ± 2.7 min, p ≤ 0.01). Procedure speed was comparable between groups (14.9 vs. 16.6 mm2/min, p = 0.29). Lower adverse events were observed in the EIP patients (3.8 vs. 10.2%, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

EIP allows results that do not differ from S-ESD in the resection of colorectal superficial neoplasms localized in "challenging sites" in terms of efficacy and safety. EIP reduces the time to reach the lesions and may more safely facilitate endoscopic resection.

In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation on the Effectiveness of Alginate-Based Gastric Mucosal Protective Gel

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of an alginate-based gastric mucosal protective gel on the gastric ulcer.

Methods

(1) In the physical protection model, after GES-1 cell attachment add the gel to transwell chamber, add different concentrations of HCl to the gel. Absorbance was measured to assess proliferation and images of the cells migrating into the wound were taken; then the migration rate of the cells was quantified by comparing images. (2) In the gastric ulcer model, excise the gastric mucosal of SD rats; the gel and fixative were applied on the artificial ulcer immediately. Dissect rats after 10 days, and calculate the wound healing rate and analyzed histology changes.

Results

The effect of hydrochloric acid on cells in the lower layer was significantly reduced after the use of gastric mucosal protection gel. The protective gel had an isolation effect on different concentrations of acid. A number of GES-1 were significantly higher than those in the control group at 24 h to 72 h (P < 0.01). The migration was observed compared with the control group. The average healing rate of ulcer in the gel group was about 50%, and the control group was about 30%. Inflammation occurred in all wound regions after ten days. In the gel group, inflammatory infiltration depth was lower than that of the control, and part of SD rats' new muscle layer appeared without inflammatory infiltration. The connective tissue proliferation promoted tissue repair. In the control group, necrosis marginal, mucosal hyperplasia, marginal lymphocyte aggregation, and bleeding were observed.

Conclusion

This novel gel mainly has an isolating and shielding effect to prevent the wound from being exposed to gastric acid for a long time, and it can reduce the inflammatory reaction on the wounds to promote the healing of the ulcer. The gastric mucosal protective gel cannot only promote the speed of wound healing but also improve the quality of wound healing.

Use of an endoscopic flexible grasper as a traction tool for excision of polyps: preclinical trial

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging in the right colon. Traction devices can make it technically easier. In this study, we evaluated a flexible grasper with articulating tip and elbow-like bending (IgE) through a double-balloon surgical platform (DESP), compared with an earlier generation grasper without elbow-like bending (Ig). The reach of Ig/IgE was investigated at eight locations using a synthetic colon within a 3D model. Using a fresh porcine colorectum, 4 cm pseudo-polyps were created at the posterior wall of the ascending colon. Fifty-four ESD procedures were performed using three techniques: standard ESD (STD), ESD using Ig (DESP + Ig), and ESD using IgE (DESP + IgE). IgE was able to reach the full circumference at all the locations, whereas the medial walls proximal to the descending colon were out of Ig’s reach. Compared with the STD, both DESP + Ig and DESP + IgE showed significantly shorter procedure time (STD vs. DESP + Ig vs. DESP + IgE = median 48.9 min vs. 38.6 vs. 29.9) and fewer injuries (1.5 vs. 0 vs. 0). Moreover, the DESP + IgE had a shorter procedure time than the DESP + Ig (p = 0.0025). The IgE with DESP increased instrument reach compared to Ig, and likely represented a traction tool for excision of large pseudo-polyps in the right colon.