The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

Efficacy of Two Kinds of Scissor-Type Knives for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Comparative Study

INTRODUCTION

Scissor-type knives are spreading as safe devises in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated the efficacy of two kinds of scissor-type knives (Clutch Cutter: CC, Fujifilm Co. and SB Knife Jr2: SB, SB-KAWASUMI Laboratories. Inc.) in colorectal ESD.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study analyzed 178 ESD cases treated with CC from January 2020 to August 2021 and 91 cases with SB from September 2021 to December 2023. The two groups were compared through propensity score matching. Therapeutic results, such as ESD procedure time, en bloc resection rate, perioperative bleeding frequency, and complications, were analyzed in each group. Risk factors for long ESD procedure time (≥ 90 min) were also examined.

RESULTS

After matching, 87 cases in each group were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the ESD procedure time (min, median [interquartile range]) between the CC and SB groups (54.0 [36.0-72.0] vs. 53.0 [39.0-72.0], p = 0.99). Additionally, there were no differences in the en bloc resection (100% vs. 100%, p = 1.00), perioperative perforation (1.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 1.00), or delayed bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00). There was a significant difference in perioperative bleeding frequency (mean ± standard deviation: 1.8 ± 2.6 vs. 3.0 ± 3.5, p < 0.01). The significant risk factors (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) for long ESD procedure time in patients treated with CC or SB were antiplatelet (7.51 [1.82-31.00]), large lesion size (1.08 [1.05-1.12]), severe fibrosis (24.30 [7.60-77.90]), and perioperative bleeding frequency (1.34 [1.14-1.56]).

CONCLUSIONS

CC and SB in colorectal ESD enabled high en bloc resection and low complication rates. CC showed significantly less perioperative bleeding than SB.

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.

Hybrid Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (Short-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection)

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which utilizes ESD knife along with snare-based resection, has been developed to overcome the technical complexity of conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcomes of H-ESD vs C-ESD for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥20 mm in size.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare H-ESD and C-ESD (Short-ESD trial). Patients with colorectal lesions between 20 and 50 mm in size were randomly assigned (1:1) to H-ESD or C-ESD. Primary outcome was procedure time/speed. Secondary outcomes were en bloc and complete (R0) resection rates and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients (median age 63 years; 49.3% women) with the median polyp size of 30 mm underwent H-ESD (n = 40) and C-ESD (n = 49). The mean procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (41.1 ± 16.3 vs 54.3 ± 28.2 minutes; P = 0.007). The en bloc and R0 resection rates trended lower in the H-ESD vs C-ESD groups (77.5% vs 87.8%; P = 0.26% and 72.5% vs 79.6%; P = 0.46) without reaching statistical significance. Adverse event rate was similar between H-ESD and C-ESD (10% vs 8.2%; P = 1.00).

DISCUSSION

Both H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for resection of large colorectal lesions. H-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time. H-ESD may represent a viable alternative to C-ESD, with the main advantage being easy applicability of a snare-based technique for colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further define the most suitable lesions for H-ESD, as to optimize efficiency and safety without compromising resection outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT NCT05347446.

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

The role of cap-assisted endoscopy and its future implications

Cap-assisted endoscopy refers to a procedure in which a short tube made of a polymer (mostly transparent) is attached to the distal tip of the endoscope to enhance its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. It is reported to be particularly useful in: (1) minimizing blind spots during screening colonoscopy, (2) providing a constant distance from a lesion for clear visualization during magnifying endoscopy, (3) accurately assessing the size of various gastrointestinal lesions, (4) preventing mucosal injury during foreign body removal, (5) securing adequate workspace in the submucosal space during endoscopic submucosal dissection or third space endoscopy, (6) providing an optimal approach angle to a target, and (7) suctioning mucosal and submucosal tissue with negative pressure for resection or approximation. Here, we review various applications of attachable caps in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and their future implications.

Multicenter prospective randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the pocket-creation method with and without single-clip traction of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

The pocket-creation method (PCM) was developed to overcome the technical difficulties of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), although opening the pocket remains challenging. We developed a novel technique of PCM with single-clip traction (PCM-CT), which uses a reopenable clip as a traction device to maintain stability during the procedure. No prospective study has compared the efficacy of PCM-CT and PCM. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of PCM-CT vs. PCM in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at four Japanese institutions. Patients with superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions were included following Japanese guidelines for colorectal cancer. Seven moderately experienced endoscopists performed the ESD procedures using either PCM-CT or PCM.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in the study. Compared with PCM, PCM-CT achieved significantly faster mean (SD) dissection speed (21.4 [10.8] vs. 27.0 [14.5] mm2/min [95%CI 0.5 to 10.7], P = 0.03), and reduced the mean procedure time (81.8 [57.9] vs. 64.8 [47.6] minutes [95%CI -38.2 to 4.3], P = 0.12) and pocket-opening time (37.8 [33.0] vs. 30.0 [28.9] minutes [95%CI -20.2 to 4.6], P = 0.22). En bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between the two groups (100% vs. 100%, P >0.99; 100% vs. 96%, P = 0.50, respectively). No significant differences were observed in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ESD facilitated by the novel PCM-CT method appeared to be significantly faster than PCM. Both methods achieved high R0 resection rates.

Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for colorectal tumor with positive muscle-retracting sign

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumors with positive muscle-retracting (MR) sign often results in incomplete resection or discontinuation owing to the difficulty of submucosal dissection. The present study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in diagnosing the MR sign and performing ESD using the pocket-creation method (PCM).

Methods

Thirty-six cases of colorectal tumors with positive MR sign during ESD between January 2015 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were divided into two groups: 1) the conventional method (CM) group, comprising 29 cases, and 2) the PCM group with seven cases, in which preoperative EUS and ESD using PCM were performed. Treatment outcomes were compared between the groups. The diagnostic yield of EUS for the MR sign was evaluated among large sessile tumors >20 mm in which preoperative EUS was performed.

Results

Histologic diagnosis was adenoma or Tis carcinoma in 12 cases (33%), T1 carcinoma in 18 cases (50%), T2 carcinoma in four cases (11%), and unevaluable in two cases (6%). The sensitivity and specificity of the EUS-MR sign for large sessile tumors were 87.5% and 83.3%, respectively. ESD was achieved in all cases in the PCM group, although it was discontinued in eight cases (28%) in the CM group. There were significant differences between the PCM and CM groups in en bloc resection (100% vs. 48%, p = 0.013) and R0 resection rates (71% vs. 31%, p = 0.049).

Conclusion

The MR sign can be predicted by preoperative EUS, and ESD using PCM allows en bloc resection.

Intelligent surgical workflow recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with real-time animal study

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have witnessed human-level performance; however, AI-enabled cognitive assistance for therapeutic procedures has not been fully explored nor pre-clinically validated. Here we propose AI-Endo, an intelligent surgical workflow recognition suit, for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Our AI-Endo is trained on high-quality ESD cases from an expert endoscopist, covering a decade time expansion and consisting of 201,026 labeled frames. The learned model demonstrates outstanding performance on validation data, including cases from relatively junior endoscopists with various skill levels, procedures conducted with different endoscopy systems and therapeutic skills, and cohorts from international multi-centers. Furthermore, we integrate our AI-Endo with the Olympus endoscopic system and validate the AI-enabled cognitive assistance system with animal studies in live ESD training sessions. Dedicated data analysis from surgical phase recognition results is summarized in an automatically generated report for skill assessment.

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.

Factors associated with increased duration of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumors: a 22-year retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used in several countries. However, it is associated with technical difficulties. Rectal ESD is considered an intermediate step in colorectal ESD training. Nevertheless, some rectal lesions require a longer procedure time than usual, and the reason for the prolonged time taken for these specific lesions remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the factors associated with prolonged rectal ESD.

METHODS

In total, 483 rectal lesions resected using ESD from February 1998 to June 2021 were investigated. Prolonged ESD procedure time was defined as the time from the first submucosal injection to lesion removal exceeding 120 minutes, whereas other procedures were defined as average ESD procedure time. Clinicopathologic and endoscopic findings were compared between the 2 groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four lesions were resected using a prolonged ESD procedure time of 202.9 ± 92.3 minutes, whereas 339 lesions were resected using an average ESD procedure time of 77.8 ± 29.4 minutes. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumors involving the dentate line (P = .026), resection size ≥50 mm (P < .001), invasion depth ≥T1b (P = .006), and circumferential range ≥2/3 (P = .001) were independent risk factors for prolonged-duration ESDs, regardless of whether the procedure was performed by an expert or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that the location of a lesion involving the dentate line, resection size ≥50 mm, circumferential range ≥2/3, and invasion depth ≥T1b are the independent risk factors for prolonged ESD procedure time.

Role of Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Comprehensive Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), also called neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), are relatively uncommon, heterogenous tumors primarily originating in the gastrointestinal tract. With the improvement in technology and increasing use of cross-sectional imaging and endoscopy, they are being discovered with increasing frequency. Although traditionally considered indolent tumors with good prognoses, some NENs exhibit aggressive behavior. Timely diagnosis, risk stratification, and management can often be a challenge. In general, small NENs without local invasion or lymphovascular involvement can often be managed using minimally invasive advanced endoscopic techniques, while larger lesions and those with evidence of lymphovascular invasion require surgery, systemic therapy, or a combination thereof. Ideal management requires a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the stage and grade of the tumor. With the recent advancements, a therapeutic advanced endoscopist can play a pivotal role in diagnosing, staging, and managing this rare condition. High-definition white light imaging and digital image enhancing technologies like narrow band imaging (NBI) in the newer endoscopes have improved the diagnostic accuracy of traditional endoscopy. The refinement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) over the past decade has revolutionized the role of endoscopy in diagnosing and managing various pathologies, including NENs. In addition to EUS-directed diagnostic biopsies, it also offers the ability to precisely assess the depth of invasion and lymphovascular involvement and thus stage NENs accurately. EUS-directed locoregional ablative therapies are increasingly recognized as highly effective, minimally invasive treatment modalities for NENs, particularly pancreatic NENs. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques like endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) have been increasingly used over the past decade with excellent results in achieving curative resection of various early-stage gastrointestinal luminal lesions including NENs. In this article, we aim to delineate NENs of the different segments of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (esophagus, gastric, pancreatic, and small and large intestine) and their management with emphasis on the endoscopic management of these tumors.

Full-thickness resection closure using reopenable-clip over-the-line method inside a submucosal pocket

Video 1Full-thickness defect resection closure using the reopenable-clip over-the-line method inside a submucosal pocket in the porcine stomach.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a Western multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent Western studies support the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions throughout the GI tract. Although admission for observation after ESD is standard in Asia, a more selective approach may optimize resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after ESD and factors associated with admission.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort of patients undergoing ESD (2016-2021). The primary end points were safety of SDD and factors associated with post-ESD admission.

RESULTS

Of 831 patients (median age, 67 years; 57% male) undergoing 831 ESDs (240 performed in the esophagus, 126 in the stomach, and 465 in the colorectum; median lesion size, 44 mm), 588 (71%) were SDD versus 243 (29%) admissions. Delayed bleeding and perforation occurred in 12 (2%) and 4 (.7%) of SDD patients, respectively; only 1 (.2%) required surgery. Of the 243 admissions, 223 (92%) were discharged after ≤24 hours of observation. Interestingly, larger lesion size (>44 mm) was not associated with higher admission rate (odds ratio [OR], .5; 95% confidence interval [CI], .3-.8; P = .001). Lesions in the upper GI tract versus colon (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .01), invasive cancer (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .01), and adverse events (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.8; P = .001) were independent factors for admission. Admissions were more likely performed by endoscopists with ESD volume <50 cases (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; P = .001) with procedure time >75 minutes (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 8.5-21.3; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

SDD after ESD can be safe and feasible. Patients with invasive cancer, lesions in the upper GI tract, longer procedure times, or procedures performed by low-volume ESD endoscopists are more likely to be admitted postprocedure. Risk stratification of patients for SDD after ESD should help optimize resource utilization and enhance ESD uptake in the West. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.).

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

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Several techniques, such as traction techniques, pocket techniques and others, have been proposed to facilitate it. One modified pocket technique especially suitable for large lesions is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESTD and compare ESTD to the conventional ESD (CESD) for treating large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

The charts of consecutive patients referred to the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (Reggio Emilia, Italy) for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms > 40 mm were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, procedure speed, the adverse events rate and the recurrence rate.

RESULTS

There were 59 patients (M:F ratio 29:30, median age 70 years [range 50-93 years]). Of 59 colorectal lesions > 40 mm, 25 were removed by ESTD and 34 by CESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups and the complete resection rate was similar (ESTD 92% vs CESD 97.1%, p = 0.569), while the curative resection rate was higher in the CESD group, but not significantly (94.1% vs 76%, p = 0.061). Procedure speed was significantly faster with ESTD (22 vs 17 mm²/min, p = 0.045), and the overall incidence of adverse events was low (6.8%). Eight patients were referred to surgery due to non-curative resection. During follow-up, no recurrence was observed in either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

ESTD achieves a very high en bloc resection rate and is faster than CESD.

Continuous use of antithrombotic medications during peri-endoscopic submucosal dissection period for colorectal lesions: A propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study was to elucidate the continuous use of antithrombotic medications during the peri-colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) period.

METHODS

This study included 468 patients with colorectal epithelial neoplasms treated by ESD, consisting of 82 under antithrombotic medications and 386 patients without the medications. Among patients taking antithrombotic medications, antithrombotic agents were continued during the peri-ESD period. Clinical characteristics and adverse events were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Before and after propensity score matching, post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was higher in patients continuing antithrombotic medications (19.5% and 21.6%, respectively) than in those not taking antithrombotic medications (2.9% and 5.4%, respectively). In the Cox regression analysis, continuation of antithrombotic medications was associated with post-ESD bleeding risk (hazard ratio, 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.6; P < 0.05) compared with patients without antithrombotic therapy. All patients who experienced post-ESD bleeding were successfully treated by endoscopic hemostasis procedure or conservative therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuation of antithrombotic medications during the peri-colorectal ESD period increases the risk of bleeding. However, the continuation may be acceptable under careful monitoring for post-ESD bleeding.

Efficacy and safety of pocket-creation method for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting during ESD have been demonstrated. Additionally, ESD is time-consuming and poses a high risk of perforation and bleeding when performed in challenging locations. The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal tumors, while the outcomes of application in the treatment of EGCs are rarely reported. In the present study, we aimed to compare the technical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD and the conventional ESD (c-ESD) technique for the treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study consisting of 162 patients with EGCs who underwent ESD between February 2019 and February 2021. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

PCM-ESD was more likely to be used in patients with larger lesions than c-ESD with/without traction. In addition, the resection speed for lesions of the PCM-ESD was faster compared with c-ESD without traction (median dissection speed: 19.6 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p < 0.001) and c-ESD with traction (median dissection speed after PSM: 19.9 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p = 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of PCM-ESD (p = 0.034), the long diameter of the resected lesion (p = 0.001), and lesion location (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, PCM-ESD appeared to be a safer and more effective treatment for EGCs than c-ESD. In addition, PCM-ESD could significantly improve the speed of tumor resection.

A Look into the Future of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Third Space Endoscopy: The Role for Robotics and Other Innovation

Endoscopic resection has been widely applied especially in endoscopic submucosal dissection and third space endoscopy (TSE). Flexible endoluminal robotics allow performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection with exposure of the submucosal plane for precise dissection using two robotic arms. The introduction of TSE revolutionized the horizon of therapeutic endoscopy to the submucosal space beneath and beyond the mucosa. Advantages of TSE include avoidance of full thickness incision in gastrointestinal tract through the submucosal tunneling for performance of peroral endoscopic myotomy and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. In future, robotic-driven devices should be developed to enhance performance of complex endoluminal procedures and TSE.

Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy

Submucosal endoscopy (third-space endoscopy) can be defined as an endoscopic procedure performed in the submucosal space. This procedure is novel and has been utilized for delivery to the submucosal space in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases, such as a tumor, achalasia, gastroparesis, and subepithelial tumors. The main submucosal endoscopy includes peroral endoscopic myotomy, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy, Zenker peroral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunneling for endoscopic resection, and endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection. Submucosal endoscopy has been used as a viable alternative to surgical techniques because it is minimally invasive in the treatment and diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. However, there is limited evidence to prove this. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding submucosal endoscopy while exploring the possible future clinical applications in this field. As our understanding of these procedures improves, the future of submucosal endoscopy could be promising in the fields of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case–control study

Background

Dual-clip and rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (DCRB-ESD) is a useful technique in the management of lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) of the colon and is suggested by researchers compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to further analyze the efficiency and safety of DCRB-ESD in a setting with varying technical difficulties.

Methods

Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment (DCRB-ESD or C-ESD) due to LSTs between Jan 1st, 2019 and Jan 1st, 2022, were retrospectively collected. Patients were classified into the following two groups: the DCRB-ESD group (n = 46) and the C-ESD group (n = 81). Baselines were compared and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to manage the heterogeneity. The technical difficulty and outcomes of the two groups were evaluated based on a semiquantitative model (CS-CRESD) previously described.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced except sex and LST classification before PSM and were corrected after PSM. The median ESD operation time of DCRB-ESD was shorter than that of C-ESD (32 vs 41 and 30 vs 44 before and after PSM respectively, P < 0.05). The operation durations of cases with different CS-CRESD scores were different (P < 0.05). In the subgroup with a score of 0, DCRB-ESD showed no advantage than C-ESD in terms of operation duration before and after PSM. In subgroups with a score of 1–3, DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD. In subgroups with a score of 4–5, the between-group operation duration was not significantly different due to the limited number of cases, although the median time of DCRB-ESD was shorter. The R0 resection rates, curative resection, complications, and additional surgery in both groups were not significantly different. No adverse events, such as a clip falling off or rubber band rupturing occurred during this study.

Conclusion

DCRB-ESD was an efficient and safe procedure in the management of colonic LSTs. With DCRB-ESD, the operation duration of difficult cases can be shortened without sacrificing complication risk. However, not all cases would benefit from DCRB-ESD. For easy cases (CS-CRESD score = 0), DCRB-ESD may not be prior to C-ESD by experienced endoscopists. A pre-ESD technical difficulty evaluation was recommended to decide whether to perform DCRB-ESD or not.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal neoplasia performed with a waterjet system-assisted knife: higher en-bloc resection rate than conventional technique

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique.

METHODS

The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD.

CONCLUSION

WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

Novel Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection With Double-Endoscope and Snare-Based Traction

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically demanding, and the traction offered by gravity, cap, or clip-with-line during conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection remains unsatisfactory. Robotic systems are still under development and are expensive. We proposed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with strong and adjustable traction offered by snaring the lesion with additional scope.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to test the novel double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study that reviewed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection, and size, location, morphology, and pathology between groups were compared.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a referral endoscopy center in a local hospital.

PATIENTS

This study included patients with colorectal lesions receiving double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection and matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The pathological completeness, procedure time, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifteen double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures, with 11 lesions located in the proximal colon with a median size of 40 mm, were performed. The median procedure time of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection was 32.45 (interquartile range, 16.03-38.20) minutes. The time required for second scope insertion was 2.57 (interquartile range, 0.95-6.75) minutes; for snaring, 3.03 (interquartile range, 2.12-6.62) minutes; and for actual endoscopic submucosal dissection, 28.23 (interquartile range, 7.90-37.00) minutes. All lesions were resected completely. No major complication was encountered. The procedure time was significantly shorter than that of 14 matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissections (54.61 [interquartile range, 33.11-97.25] min; p = 0.021).

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center, single-operator, retrospective case-controlled study with limited cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the feasibility of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction to shorten procedure time and to simplify endoscopic submucosal dissection. Additional trials are required.

Diving, lifting, and horizontal dissection followed by loop-clip traction (DLH+T) can facilitate mucosal flap creation during colorectal ESD

BACKGROUND

Colorectal ESD is difficult because of the poor maneuverability and difficulty of mucosal flap creation. Diving, Lifting and Horizontal (DLH) dissection technique and loop-clip traction are two different methods to facilitate mucosal trimming and adequate mucosal flap creation. We combined the advantages of these two techniques (DLH+T) in our daily practice colorectal ESD since July 2020.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of DLH+T dissection compared with the conventional dissection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical using DLH+T dissection compared with the conventional dissection since January 2018 at a single tertiary care institution. Postoperative short-term outcomes were investigated after the procedure including mucosal flap creation time, dissection time, dissection speed, en bloc resection rate, and perioperative complications.

RESULTS

28 lesions were in DLH+T dissection group and 39 lesions in the conventional dissection group. The outcomes including en bloc resection rate, dissection speed, and complication between the two groups were similar. The mean mucosal flap creation time (p = 0.035) and the mean dissection speed (p = 0.041) of the DLH+T dissection group was significantly shorter and faster.

CONCLUSION

DLH dissection followed by loop-clip traction (DLH+T) technique is a useful technique for safe, efficient, and adequate mucosal flap creation, which can increase the dissection speed and may prevent complication, especially in biopsy-related submucosal fibrosis.

Efficacy of the pocket-creation method with a traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection is challenging because of severe fibrosis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (TD) with that of conventional ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 72 patients with residual or recurrent colorectal lesions resected using ESD. Overall, 31 and 41 lesions were resected using PCM with TD and conventional ESD methods, respectively. We compared patient background and treatment outcomes between the PCM with TD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. The primary endpoints were en bloc resection and R0 resection rates. The secondary endpoints were the dissection speed and incidence of adverse events.

Results

En bloc resection was feasible in all cases with PCM with TD, but failed in 22% of cases of conventional ESD. The R0 resection rates for PCM with TD and conventional ESD were 97% and 66%, respectively. Dissection was significantly faster in the PCM with TD group (13.0 vs. 7.9 mm²/min). Perforation and postoperative bleeding were observed in one patient in each group.

Conclusions

PCM with TD is an effective method for treating residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection.

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket creation method in the Japanese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard method for minimally invasive resection of superficial gastrointestinal tumors. The pocket creation method (PCM) facilitates ESD regardless of location in the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESD for superficial neoplasms in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract comparing the PCM to the non-PCM. Methods  Randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective studies comparing the PCM with the non-PCM were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, dissection speed, delayed bleeding and perforation. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model were documented. Results  Eight studies including gastric, duodenal, and colorectal ESD were included. The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 3.87, 95 %CI 1.24-12.10 P  = 0.020). The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 2.46, 95 %CI 1.14-5.30, P  = 0.020). The dissection speed was significantly faster in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (mean difference 3.13, 95 % CI 1.35-4.91, P  < 0.001). The rate of delayed bleeding was similar in the two groups (OR 1.13, 95 %CI 0.60-2.15, P =  0.700). The rate of perforation was significantly lower in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 0.34, 95 %CI 0.15-0.76, P =  0.009). Conclusions  The PCM facilitates high-quality, fast and safe colorectal ESD. Further studies are needed regarding the utility of PCM in ESD of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

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.

Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection is first-line therapy in the management of superficial neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract, as well as an increasingly viable therapeutic alternative in the resection of selected small deep lesions throughout the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The mainstay of therapy has traditionally been endoscopic snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection. However, recent innovative advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have provided for the ability to resect large superficial lesions and selected subepithelial lesions in en bloc and margin-negative fashion. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art in advanced endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

The usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method with a traction device using a scissor-type knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

INTRODUCTION

Technical issues and long procedure time still remain a concern in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (S-O clip; SO) using a scissor-type knife (Clutch Cutter 3.5 mm; CC) for decreasing ESD procedure time.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 95 ESD cases of PCM + SO + CC managed from August 2017 to April 2020 and 103 cases of PCM + CC treated from July 2016 to July 2017. We compared these two groups through propensity score matching. The main outcome was the analysis of the ESD procedure times under various conditions in each group.

RESULTS

After matching, 52 cases in the PCM + SO + CC and PCM + CC groups were analyzed. The PCM + SO + CC group showed a significantly shorter ESD procedure time than the PCM + CC group (57.8 ± 31.4 vs. 81.7 ± 33.5 min, p < 0.01). Additionally, the ESD procedure time was significantly shorter in the PCM + SO + CC group than in the PCM + CC group: tumor size (tumor size < 40 mm: 45.6 ± 15.8 vs. 72.7 ± 22.9 min, p < 0.01; tumor size ≥ 40 mm: 83.1 ± 40.1 vs. 111.8 ± 45.3 min, p = 0.04), tumor location (right side: 64.7 ± 33.3 vs. 81.0 ± 29.7 min, p = 0.03; left side: 50.5 ± 28.0 vs. 82.3 ± 36.9 min, p < 0.01), tumor morphology (polypoid: 39.2 ± 18.6 vs. 74.7 ± 28.6 min, p < 0.01; nonpolypoid: 62.3 ± 32.3 vs. 84.5 ± 35.2 min, p < 0.01), endoscopist (expert: 67.3 ± 41.2 vs. 91.9 ± 40.2 min, p = 0.02; nonexpert: 50.4 ± 18.3 vs. 73.6 ± 24.9 min, p < 0.01), and fibrosis (severe fibrosis: 82.0 ± 20.5 vs. 99.8 ± 40.4 min, p = 0.169; non-severe fibrosis: 52.1 ± 23.8 vs. 75.6 ± 29.0 min, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of the PCM and SO using CC achieved a reduction in the colorectal ESD procedure time.

The Pocket-Creation Method Facilitates Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Neoplasms Along the Lesser Curvature at the Gastric Angle

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial gastric lesions located along the lesser curvature at the gastric angle is a challenging situation due to paradoxical movement and a protruding angle. The pocket-creation method (PCM) can overcome this difficulty by stabilizing the tip of the endoscope in the pocket and minimizing insufflation of the stomach, which enables horizontal and straight dissection. This study aims to clarify whether the PCM improves the technical outcomes of ESD of superficial gastric neoplasms along the lesser curvature at the angle.

Methods

From October 2006 to June 2021, 158 gastric lesions along the lesser curvature at the angle were resected with needle-type knives. We retrospectively reviewed the records and divided them into the PCM group (n = 61) and the conventional method (CM) group (n = 97). The primary outcome measurement was dissection speed (in mm²/min).

Results

The two groups were not significantly different for baseline characteristics such as macroscopic type and size except for the proportion of adenomas. The proportion of expert endoscopists was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.141). The dissection speed was significantly faster in the PCM group than in the CM group (P = 0.001). There were no holes in the resected specimens in the PCM group, while five lesions in the CM group (5%) had a hole (P = 0.182). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusions

This is the first study to show that the PCM outperforms the CM for ESD of lesions located along the lesser curvature at the gastric angle. The PCM facilitated ESD of these lesions by significantly increasing dissection speed when a needle-type knife is used with no increase in adverse events.

Orthodontic Rubber Band-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Efficient Method for Treating Superficial Colorectal Tumors

Background

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a complex operation. Effective traction is crucial. We have successfully used an orthodontic rubber band (ORB) combined with the clip traction method to assist ESD (ORB-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to describe the method and to compare the efficacy and safety of ORB-ESD versus conventional ESD in the treatment of superficial colorectal tumors.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with superficial colorectal tumor (with diameter ≥ 20 mm) who received either ORB-ESD (n = 34) or conventional ESD (n = 90) between January 2019 and September 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the clinical data of 31 pairs of patients in each group.

Results

Operation time was significantly shorter for ORB-ESD than for conventional ESD (34.5 minutes vs. 56 minutes, P ≤ 0.001). In the propensity-matched cohorts, the operation time remained significantly shorter in the ORB-ESD patients (35 minutes vs. 50 minutes, P = 0.001). Postoperative adverse events, en bloc resection rate, and R0 resection rate were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05), both before and after propensity score matching. In the ORB subgroup analysis, the trainee and expert ESD operation times were similar (37 (26–53) vs. 33.5 (26–37) minutes, respectively; P = 0.274).

Conclusion

ORB-ESD appears to be an effective technique for ESD of colorectal cancer. Our findings need to be confirmed in large prospective multicenter studies.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Methods of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method (P-ESD), traction-assisted method (T-ESD), and hybrid method (H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3,002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than that of C-ESD, P-ESD, and T-ESD (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]; RR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]; RR = 8.28, 95% CI [2.50, 27.42]). Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter (MD = -21.83, 95% CI [-34.76, -8.90]; MD = -23.8, 95% CI [-32.55, -15.06]). Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than that of P-ESD (MD = -18.74, 95% CI [-31.93, -5.54]). The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than that of C-ESD (MD = 6.26, 95% CI [2.29, 10.23]).

CONCLUSION

P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.

Pocket-creation method improves efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a system review and meta-analysis

The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a new strategy for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this system review is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD) for colorectal neoplasm lesions. We performed literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL database from inception to 15 February 2020. Studies provided comparison between PCM-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal neoplasm lesions were included. En bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, occurrence rate of adverse events and operation speed/time were extracted from included studies. Pooled risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated in meta-analysis. Three cohort studies and one randomized control trial (RCT) were included, which contained 432 colorectal lesions removed by PCM-ESD and 959 lesions resected by C-ESD. PCM-ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc/R0 resection rate than C-ESD in cohort studies with pooled risk differences of 0.05 (CI, 0.03-0.07, I2 = 34%) and 0.14 (CI, 0.04-0.24, I2 = 83%). However, comparison of en bloc/R0 resection rate between two surgery strategies could not be estimated in RCT. Pooled results in cohort studies and data from RCT revealed comparable occurrence rate of adverse events between PCM-ESD and C-ESD. Measurements and outcomes of operation time/speed varied between the included studies and no consistent conclusion could be achieved in this aspect. The results indicate that PCM-ESD is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for colorectal neoplasm lesions and may be a superior treatment to C-ESD in en bloc/R0 resection rate.

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Update on Best Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of en-bloc resection of neoplastic colorectal lesions which is less invasive compared to surgical resection. Lesion stratification, architecture recognition and estimation of depth of invasion are crucial for patient selection. Expert endoscopists have integrated a variety of classification systems including Paris, lateral spreading tumor (LST), narrow band imaging (NBI), international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) and Japanese NBI expert team (JNET) in their day-to-day practice to enhance lesion detection accuracy. Major societies recommend ESD for LST-non granular (NG), Kudo-VI type, large depressed and protruded colonic lesions with shallow submucosal invasion. Chance of submucosal invasion enhances with increased depth as well as tumor location and size. In comparison to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD has a lowerl recurrence rate and higher curative resection rate, making it superior for larger colonic lesions management. Major complications such as bleeding and perforation could be seen in up to 11% and 16% of patients, respectively. In major Western countries, performing ESD is challenging due to limited number of expert providers, lack of insurance coverage, and unique patient characteristics such as higher BMI and higher percentage of previously manipulated lesions.

Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

METHODS

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

CONCLUSION

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

The pocket-creation method facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasms involving the pyloric ring

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial gastric lesions involving the pyloric ring is difficult. The pocket-creation method (PCM) with a small-caliber-tip transparent hood can overcome this difficulty by compressing the pyloric sphincter applying both traction and counter-traction. The aim of this study is to clarify the usefulness of the PCM for ESD of superficial gastric neoplasms involving the pyloric ring compared to the conventional method (CM). Patients and methods  From October 2006 to August 2019, 66 gastric lesions requiring duodenal submucosal dissection beyond the pyloric ring in 66 patients were resected. The CM was mainly performed in the first period (CM group, n = 46) and the PCM in the second period (PCM group, n = 20). We retrospectively reviewed their medical records. Results  Although no significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rates between the two groups, the PCM group had a significantly higher R0 resection rate than the CM group ( P  = 0.047). There were no holes in resected specimens in the PCM group while three specimens in the CM group had a hole. The dissection speed in the PCM group tended to be higher than in the CM group, although it did not reach statistical significance ( P  = 0.148). No significant differences were observed for the incidence of adverse events. Conclusions  This is the first study reporting the advantages of the PCM over the CM for ESD of gastric lesions involving the pyloric ring. We believe that the PCM is an effective strategy to compress the pyloric sphincter and facilitates R0 resection.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in North America: A Large Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Asia has been shown to be superior to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and surgery for the management of selected early gastrointestinal cancers. We aimed to evaluate technical outcomes of ESD in North America.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective study on ESD across 10 centers in the United States and Canada between April 2016 and April 2020. End points included rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events, factors associated with failed resection, and recurrence post-R0 resection.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety-two patients (median age, 66 years; 57.8% were men) underwent ESD (median lesion size, 40 mm; interquartile range, 25-52 mm) for lesions in the esophagus (n = 181), stomach (n = 101), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 211) and rectum (n = 188). En bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.5%, 84.2%, and 78.3%, respectively. Bleeding and perforation were reported in 2.3% and 2.9% of the cases, respectively. Only 1 patient (0.14%) required surgery for adverse events. On multivariable analysis, severe submucosal fibrosis was associated with failed en bloc, R0, and curative resection and higher risk for adverse events. Overall recurrence was 5.8% (31 of 532) at a mean follow-up of 13.3 months (range, 1-60 months).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multicenter prospective North American experience, we demonstrate that ESD can be performed safely, effectively, and is associated with a low recurrence rate. The technical resection outcomes achieved in this study are in line with the current established consensus quality parameters and further support the implementation of ESD for the treatment of select gastrointestinal neoplasms; ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02989818.

Pocket-creation method versus conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, its superiority over the conventional method (CM) has not been established. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD compared with CM-ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms (SCNs).

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and a meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, and the secondary outcomes were the en bloc resection rate, dissection speed, procedure time, and adverse event rate.

RESULTS

Five studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 retrospective studies) with 1481 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that PCM-ESD achieved a higher R0 resection rate (93.5% vs 78.1%; odds ratio [OR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-8.9; I² = 58%), a higher en bloc resection rate (99.8% vs 92.8%; OR, 9.9; 95% CI, 2.7-36.2; I² = 0), a shorter procedure time (minutes) (mean difference [MD], -11.5; 95% CI, -19.9 to -3.1; I² = 72%), a faster dissection speed (mm²/min) (MD, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.8-4.5; I² = 0), and a lower overall adverse event rate (4.4% vs 6.6%; OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-1.0; I² = 0) compared with CM-ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that PCM-ESD improves the efficacy and safety compared with CM-ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms.

Double-clip traction could be superior to the pocket-creation method with cylindrical cap for colonic ESD: a randomized study in an ex vivo model

INTRODUCTION

In Western countries, debates between ESD vs piece-meal EMR as the best treatment for large colorectal adenomas persist regarding the difficulty of ESD the colon, and the safety and relatively good results of piece-meal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Pocket-creation method (PCM) and double-clip countertraction (DCT) are two strategies recently published to facilitate ESD in this challenging situation.

METHOD

This is a randomized animal study to compare PCM and DCT strategies for colonic ESD on ex vivo models (bovine colon) performed by 3 operators novice in ESD. Hybridknife type T was used to inject normal saline tinted with a small amount of blue dye in all procedures. Randomization was stratified according to the use of gravity assist. Primary endpoint was the difference in resection speed between PCM and DCT strategies.

RESULTS

Resection speed was significantly higher in the DCT group than in the PCM group (56.3 vs. 31.6 mm²/min, p = 0.01). Technical success rate, defined as en bloc resection in under 60 min, was significantly better in the DCT group than in the PCM group (100% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.024), perforation rate was lower (0% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.012), and difficulty score was better (2.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001) as was procedure duration (24.2 vs. 40.2 min, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

DCT was superior to PCM for ESD in our validated bovine colon model. This strategy is inexpensive, easy to use and adaptive. It might facilitate the widespread use of colonic ESD in Western countries and change Western ideas regarding the use of colonic ESD compared with piece-meal EMR for large benign lesions.