Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience

Endoscopic full thickness resection: techniques, applications, outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) represents a pivotal advancement in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal lesions, offering a novel approach for the management of lesions previously deemed challenging or unreachable through conventional endoscopic techniques.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the development, methodologies, applications, and clinical outcomes associated with EFTR, including exposed and device-assisted EFTR, the integration of endoscopic mucosal resection with EFTR in hybrid techniques, and the collaborative approach between laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery (LECS). It encapsulates a comprehensive analysis of the various EFTR techniques tailored to specific lesion characteristics and anatomical locations, underscoring the significance of technique selection based on the lesion's nature and situational context.

EXPERT OPINION/COMMENTARY

The review underscores EFTR's transformative role in expanding therapeutic horizons for gastrointestinal tumors, emphasizing the importance of technique selection tailored to the unique attributes of each lesion. It highlights EFTR's capacity to facilitate organ-preserving interventions, thereby significantly enhancing patient outcomes and reducing procedural complications. EFTR is a cornerstone in the evolution of gastrointestinal surgery, marking a significant leap forward in the pursuit of precision, safety, and efficacy in tumor management.

Device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in colorectum: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as an effective modality for mucosal and submucosal lesions in the colorectum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the success and safety of device-assisted EFTR in the colon and rectum.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies evaluating device-assisted EFTR between inception to October 2022. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (R0 resection) with EFTR. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In all, 29 studies with 3467 patients (59% male patients, 3492 lesions) were included in the analysis. The lesions were located in right colon (47.5%), left colon (28.6%), and rectum (24.3%). EFTR was performed for subepithelial lesions in 7.2% patients. The pooled mean size of the lesions was 16.6 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9-18.2, I2 98%). Technical success was achieved in 87.1% (95% CI 85.1-88.9%, I2 39%) procedures. The pooled rate of en bloc resection was 88.1% (95% CI 86-90%, I2 47%) and R0 resection was 81.8% (95% CI 79-84.3%, I2 56%). In subepithelial lesions, the pooled rate of R0 resection was 94.3% (95% CI 89.7-96.9%, I2 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events was 11.9% (95% CI 10.2-13.9%, I2 43%) and major adverse events requiring surgery was 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%, I2 0%).

CONCLUSION

Device-assisted EFTR is a safe and effective treatment modality in cases with adenomatous and subepithelial colorectal lesions. Comparative studies are required with conventional resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars: a retrospective Italian and Japanese comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic treatment of recurrent/residual colonic lesions on scars is a challenging procedure. In this setting, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered the first choice, despite a significant rate of complications. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) has been shown to be well-tolerated and effective for these lesions. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparison of outcomes for resection of such lesions between ESD and eFTR in an Italian and a Japanese referral center.

METHODS

From January 2018 to July 2020, we retrospectively enrolled patients with residual/recurrent colonic lesions, 20 treated by eFTR in Italy and 43 treated by ESD in Japan. The primary outcome was to compare the two techniques in terms of en-bloc and R0-resection rates, whereas complications, time of procedure, and outcomes at 3-month follow-up were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups [18/20 (90%) and 41/43 (95%); P= 0.66]. En-bloc resection was 100% in both groups. No significant difference was found in the procedure time (54 min vs. 61 min; P= 0.9). There was a higher perforation rate in the ESD group [11/43 (26%) vs. 0/20 (0%); P= 0.01]. At the 3-month follow-up, two lesions relapsed in the eFTR cohort and none in the ESD cohort (P= 0.1).

CONCLUSION

eFTR is a safer, as effective and equally time-consuming technique compared with ESD for the treatment of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars and could become an alternative therapeutic option for such lesions.

[Interventional endoscopy in gastroenterology]

Essential innovations in interventional endoscopy have significantly broadened the treatment armamentarium in gastroenterology. The treatment and complication management of intraepithelial neoplasms and early forms of cancer are increasingly being primarily addressed endoscopically. In cases of endoluminal lesions with no risk of lymph node or distant metastases, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become established as standards. For broad-based adenomas, coagulation of the resection margins should be performed in the case of a piecemeal resection. Submucosal lesions can be reached and resected by tunneling techniques. Peroral endoscopic myotomy in cases of achalasia is a new treatment option for hypertensive and hypercontractile motility disorders. In addition, endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis has shown very promising results. In this article, new resection techniques and so-called third space endoscopy are presented and critically discussed.

Expanding endoscopic boundaries: Endoscopic resection of large appendiceal orifice polyps with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Large appendiceal orifice polyps are traditionally treated surgically. Recently, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been utilized as alternative resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques for the management of large appendiceal orifice polyps.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR and ESD for large appendiceal orifice polyps. This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice polyps ≥ 1 cm from 2015 to 2022 at a tertiary referral endoscopy center in the United States were enrolled. The main outcomes of this study included en bloc resection, R0 resection, post resection adverse events, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were identified. Most patients were female (53%) and Caucasian (95%). The mean age was 63.3 ± 10.8 years, and the average body mass index was 28.8 ± 6.4. The mean polyp size was 25.5 ± 14.2 mm. 74% of polyps were localized to the appendix (at or inside the appendiceal orifice) and the remaining extended into the cecum. 68% of polyps occupied ≥ 50% of the appendiceal orifice circumference. The mean procedure duration was 61.6 ± 37.9 minutes. Polyps were resected via endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures in 5, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Final pathology was remarkable for tubular adenoma (n = 10) [one with high grade dysplasia], sessile serrated adenoma (n = 7), and tubulovillous adenoma (n = 2) [two with high grade dysplasia]. En bloc resection was achieved in 84% with an 88% R0 resection rate. Despite the large polyp sizes and challenging procedures, 89% (n = 17) of patients were discharged on the same day as their procedure. Two patients were admitted for post-procedure observation for conservative pain management. Eight patients underwent repeat colonoscopy without evidence of residual or recurrent adenomatous polyps.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights how endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures are all appropriate techniques with minimal adverse effects, further validating the utility of endoscopic procedures in the management of large appendiceal polyps.

Nontunneling Full Thickness Techniques for Neoplasia

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, second in the United States. Although most lesions are managed surgically especially when they have already invaded into the submucosal layer, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has become an emerging technique that can serve as a safe and effective alternative management for locally invasive gastrointestinal cancers. This article discusses the indications and various techniques and limitations of nontunneled EFTRs of gastrointestinal cancer and reviews the current literature on the outcomes of EFTR.

Efficacy and Safety of Small Bowel Submucosal Tumors Treated by Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection or Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection During Single-balloon Enteroscopy: Prospective Data From a Single-center Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is a safe and effective modality for the diagnosis and therapeutic treatment of small bowel disorders. However, the efficacy and safety of treating small bowel submucosal tumors (SMTs) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) during SBE have not been determined. Hence, the primary aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the therapeutic yield of SBE in patients with SMTs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients with SMTs were enrolled in this study. Regarding the sex distribution, there were 12 men (57.1%) and 9 women (42.9%). Regarding the age distribution, 42.9% of the patients were 60 years old or older and 57.1% of the patients were under 60 years old. The preoperative characteristics of SMTs were summarized and analyzed, the complete resection incidence of SMTs was determined, and the incidence of postoperative complications was collected. ESD-related and EFTR-related complications and the duration of follow-up after leaving hospital were also summarized and analyzed. The efficacy and safety of SMTs treated by ESD or EFTR during SBE were calculated as percentages.

RESULTS

Among the 21 patients, 10 (47.6%) underwent EFTR and 11 (52.4%) underwent ESD. The mean diameter of SMTs was 113.50 mm (range: 80 to 160 mm). Anterograde and retrograde SBE were conducted in 11 and 10 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 49.3 days (range: 6.0 to 129 d). The complete resection rate of SMTs was 100%. The complete suture rate of SMTs wound was 100%. The SMTs pathology of all patients showed that the margin-negative (R0) resection was 100%. The incidence of physical discomfort complications (ie, infection/fever, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension) of ESD and EFTR was 5 (23.8%) on day 1, 1 (4.8%) on day 2, and 1 (4.8%) on day 3 after operation. Only 1 (4.8%) patient with EFTR had abdominal pain on the sixth day after leaving hospital, and the visual analog scale/score was 1 point, meaning the pain was easily tolerated by the patient. Twenty (95.2%) patients had no abdominal discomfort after leaving hospital. No patients needed additional surgery because of complications after ESD or EFTR during SBE.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study showed that SMTs can be safely and effectively treated by ESD or EFTR during SBE, particularly SMTs <160 mm in diameter.

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.