Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study

Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques

The concept of submucosal space, or rather the "third space", located between the intact mucosal flap and the muscularis propria layer of the gastrointestinal tract, represents a tunnel that the endoscopist could use to perform interventions in the muscularis propria layer or breech it to enter the mediastinum or the peritoneal cavity without full thickness perforation. The tunnel technique can be used both for the removal of mucosal tumours, called endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD), for the removal of subepithelial tumours (SELs), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection (STER), and for the removal of extra-luminal lesions (for example in the mediastinum or in the rectum), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumours (STER-ET). Aim of this updated narrative review, is to summarize the evidences that analyses indications, and outcomes of tunnelling techniques for the treatment of above mentioned lesions.

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

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.