Prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

A prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancers and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used as a standard treatment regimen for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, such an approach is time consuming and has a high risk of perforation and bleeding in some corner-site lesions because of the obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting. The newly developed pocket-creation method (PCM) provides a clearer view and better traction of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (c-ESD). Nevertheless, no prospective randomized study has evaluated the efficacy of the PCM in EGCs and precancerous lesions.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial gastric neoplastic lesions ≥ 20 mm were randomly assigned to the PCM-ESD group or c-ESD group. The primary outcome was dissection speed.

RESULTS

There were 28 patients in the PCM-ESD group and 27 in the c-ESD group. The median dissection speed was significantly higher in the PCM-ESD group than in the c-ESD group (21.5 mm2/min vs 14.3 mm2/min, P < .001). Meanwhile, the operation time in the PCM-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the c-ESD group (30 vs 40 min, P = .047). In multiple linear regression analysis, the treatment method was independently associated with the resection speed of ESD.

CONCLUSION

PCM-ESD was an effective and safe treatment for EGCs and precancerous lesions.

Clinical audit of endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection performed for complex lateral spreading colorectal tumors from a region non-endemic for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection is currently the treatment of choice for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection (ESD) can achieve higher enbloc resection and R0 resection, albeit at a slightly higher risk of complications. Given scarce data on ESD from India, we performed a retrospective analysis of our experience with colorectal ESD (CR-ESD) to know its clinical efficacy and complications as well as to assess the learning curve of CR-ESD in non-endemic-areas.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained datasheet performed. All patients with large (>2cm), complex or recurrent colorectal LST who underwent ESD at our center between 2012 and 2021 were included in the study. Various baseline lesion-related parameters, procedure-related parameters, enbloc resection (ER) rates, R0 margins and adverse event rates were retrieved. CUSUM analysis was performed to calculate the minimum required procedures to achieve competency in CR-ESD.

RESULTS

Total 149 patients were included in the study; mean patient age was 61.36±18.21 years. Most patients had lesions in rectum (n=102; 68.5%) followed by sigmoid colon (n=25; 16.8%). The mean lesion size was 46.62 ± 25.46 mm and the mean procedure duration for ESD was 219.30 ± 150.05 min. ER was achieved in 94.6% of lesions. R0 resection was achieved in 132 patients (88.6%). Overall, six (4%) adverse events were noted, of which one required surgical intervention. As many as 105 patients (70.5%) had adenomatous lesions on histology. Seventy-four patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy, of which three had a recurrence of adenomatous lesions and five had post-resection stricture requiring endoscopic dilation. CUSUM curve analysis calculated the learning curve for ESD was 47 resections for ER and 55 for the occurrence of AEs, with a composite CUSUM at 47 procedures.

CONCLUSION

CR-ESD even in non-endemic area is associated with high en bloc resection rates, R0 resection rates and acceptable complication profile. Approximately 50 cases of CR-ESD are required to achieve competency.

Impact of Annual Case Volume on Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Outcomes in a Large Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed that ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection; reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort.

METHODS

Between September 2019 and September 2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Three thousand seven hundred seventy ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc , R0, and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers also achieved a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after propensity score matching, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers.

DISCUSSION

Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts.

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.

A successful case of an endoscopic submucosal dissection using a combination of the pocket-creation method and traction with a spring-and-loop with clip for early gastric cancer with severe ulcer scarring

Video 1ESD for gastric cancer with severe scarring using PCM and S-O clip.

Predicting procedure duration of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Western endoscopy centers

Background and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to evaluate existing and new prediction models for ESD duration. Patients and methods Records of all consecutive patients who underwent single, non-hybrid colorectal ESDs before 2020 at three Dutch centers were reviewed. The performance of an Eastern prediction model [GIE 2021;94(1):133-144] was assessed in the Dutch cohort. A prediction model for procedure duration was built using multivariable linear regression. The model's performance was validated using internal validation by bootstrap resampling, internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an independent Swedish ESD cohort. Results A total of 435 colorectal ESDs were analyzed (92% en bloc resections, mean duration 139 minutes, mean tumor size 39 mm). The performance of current unstandardized time scheduling practice was suboptimal (explained variance: R 2 =27%). We successfully validated the Eastern prediction model for colorectal ESD duration <60 minutes (c-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.77), but this model was limited due to dichotomization of the outcome and a relatively low frequency (14%) of ESDs completed <60 minutes in the Dutch centers. The model was more useful with a dichotomization cut-off of 120 minutes (c-statistic: 0.75; 88% and 17% of "easy" and "very difficult" ESDs completed <120 minutes, respectively). To predict ESD duration as continuous outcome, we developed and validated the six-variable cESD-TIME formula ( https://cesdtimeformula.shinyapps.io/calculator/ ; optimism-corrected R 2 =61%; R 2 =66% after recalibration of the slope). Conclusions We provided two useful tools for predicting colorectal ESD duration at Western centers. Further improvements and validations are encouraged with potential local adaptation to optimize time planning.

Effectiveness of water pressure method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by novice endoscopists

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging for novice endoscopists. Not only the underwater conditions but also active use of water pressure with the water pressure method (WPM) can help widen the submucosal layer. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of WPM in colorectal ESD, especially for novice endoscopists. Methods This study was ex vivo and enrolled three novices. Each endoscopist performed conventional ESD (C-ESD) and ESD with WPM (WPM-ESD) 10 times on an excised bovine rectum. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (54 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 42-67 vs. 45 minutes, IQR 34-55, P  = 0.035). Although no significant difference in the activation time of electrical surgical unit (ESU) during the procedure was noted, the interval time during the procedure at which the ESU was not activated was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group (52 minutes, IQR 40-65 vs. 42 minutes, IQR 32-52, P  = 0.030) than in the C-ESD group. Moreover, the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (8.0 minutes, IQR 6.0-10 vs. 5.0 minutes, IQR 3.0-6.0, P  < 0.001). Conclusions The present study reveals that the WPM method significantly shortens the procedure times for novices in colorectal ESD, especially the interval time, which refers to the time spent creating the field of view, and the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa.

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.

Feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal tumors involving the ileocecal valve or appendiceal orifice

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic resection of the ileocecal valve lesions (ICVL) and peri-appendiceal orifice lesions (PAOL), is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ICVLs and PAOLs compared with other cecal lesions (OCEL).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at a cancer center hospital and two community hospitals. Non-pedunculated cecal lesions that were intended to be treated by ESD followed by at least one surveillance colonoscopy were included. The main outcome was curative resection defined as en-bloc resection and R0 resection without risk factors of metastases. The secondary outcome was co lon preservation.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients with 206 cecal lesions, including 37 ICVL, 27 PAOL, and 142 OCEL, who were to be treated with ESD were included in this study. Curative resection rates were 75.7% for ICVL, 70.4% for PAOL, and 77.5% for OCEL (P = 0.67). In the multivariate analysis of predictors of curative resection, tumor size (<40 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 2.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.14-5.04; P = 0.02) and a negative non-lifting sign (OR 6.12; 95% CI, 2.55-14.60; P < 0.01) were significant. Colon preservation was achieved for 91.9% of the ICVL, 92.6% of the PAOL, and 90.8% of the OCEL (P = 0.947).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on curative resection and colon preservation rates, ESD was found to be feasible for ICVL and PAOL. Large tumor size (≥ 40 mm) and positive non-lifting signs were significant factors for non-curative resection.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

METHODS

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

RESULTS

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

CONCLUSION

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.

Repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection as salvage treatment for local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after initial endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after endoscopic resection does not have an established treatment. The efficacy and safety of repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for recurrent ESCC were determined in the study.

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients with 45 locally recurrent superficial ESCC lesions undergoing repeat ESD and 909 first ESD lesions for propensity score matching (PSM) at Zhongshan Hospital between January 2011 and January 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After PSM (1:2), operation-related parameters were compared between repeat ESD and first ESD. In the repeat ESD group, the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used for identification of risk factors for local recurrence after repeat ESD.

RESULTS

As compared with propensity score-matched first ESD, rates of complete resection (86.7% vs 97.8%, P = .02) and curative resection (86.7% vs 96.7%, P = .06) were lower and procedure duration (54.8 ± 21.7 minutes vs 46.2 ± 20.6 minutes, P = .67) and hospital stay (4.3 ± 1.8 days vs 2.9 ± 1.4 days, P = .25) were longer in the repeat ESD group. The en-bloc resection rate (93.3% vs 98.8%, P > .11) remained comparable. Adverse events including bleeding (4.4% vs 0%, P = .11), perforation (.0% vs .0%, P > .99), and stricture (6.7% vs 2.2%, P = .33) presented with no difference. The 5-year overall survival rate and recurrence-free survival rate for repeat ESD was 100% and 86.0%, respectively. Multiplicity was significantly associated with recurrence after repeat ESD (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat esophageal ESD showed favorable short- and long-term outcomes and thus provides an alternative choice for recurrent superficial ESCC.

The usefulness of a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by non-expert endoscopists in a porcine model (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an optimal treatment for colorectal tumors; however, it is technically difficult, especially for non-experts. Therefore, a device that helps non-experts perform colorectal ESD would be beneficial. A double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform (DEIP) was recently developed to assist colorectal ESD through endoscope stabilization and traction. This study assessed the usefulness of colorectal ESD using the DEIP (DEIP-ESD) by endoscopists, including non-experts, in a living porcine model.

METHODS

Two pigs were used to perform eight DEIP-ESD and eight conventional cap-assisted ESD (C-ESD) procedures. Three experts and five non-experts each resected one lesion using DEIP-ESD and one using C-ESD. We evaluated the treatment outcomes and performed stratified analyses between the experts and non-experts.

RESULTS

Dissection speed was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (13.3 mm²/min vs 28.5 mm²/min, P = 0.002). However, the total procedure time did not differ significantly between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD. In the stratified analyses, the dissection speed of non-experts was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (10.9 mm²/min vs 25.1 mm²/min, P = 0.016), while that of experts increased in DEIP-ESD but to a lesser extent (19.1 mm²/min vs 28.8 mm²/min, P = 0.1). The total procedure time did not differ between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD for both experts and non-experts. The self-completion rate of non-experts also increased in DEIP-ESD. Moreover, the number of muscularis propria injuries induced by non-experts was fewer in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

DEIP could facilitate colorectal ESD by improving dissection efficiency without increasing adverse events, especially when performed by non-experts.

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.

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.

Efficacy of single-balloon overtube for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the proximal colon: A propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

A single-balloon overtube (SBO) can improve poor scope operability during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of SBO for ESD in the proximal colon and the predictive factors for cases in which SBO is useful.

METHODS

A total of 88 tumors located in the proximal colon resected by balloon-assisted ESD (BA-ESD) using SBO and 461 tumors resected by conventional ESD (C-ESD) between June 2015 and November 2020 were considered. Seventy-eight tumors each in the BA-ESD and C-ESD groups were matched by propensity score matching. ESD outcomes were compared between the groups, and a decision tree analysis was performed to explore the predictive factors for cases in which SBO is useful.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in the major outcomes such as en bloc resection rate (95% vs. 99%, p = 0.17), R0 resection rate (92% vs. 96%, p = 0.30), mean dissection speed (16 mm²/min vs. 16 mm²/min, p = 0.53), and intraoperative perforation rate (5% vs. 6%, p = 0.73). Even when considering cases with poor preoperative scope operability, there were no significant differences between the groups. Comparison of tumors ≥40 mm in diameter between the groups confirmed that the intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the BA-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (0% vs. 24%, p = 0.0188).

CONCLUSION

SBO is useful for ESD of tumors ≥40 mm in diameter in the proximal colon to prevent intraoperative perforation, which usually has a long procedure time.

Randomized study of two endo-knives for the traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Needle-type devices, such as the DualKnife (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), are widely used for traction-assisted esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) but require a prolonged operation time. An improved model of the ITknife (Olympus), the ITknife nano, may allow faster and easier ESD than the DualKnife. We conducted a randomized study to compare the performances of the DualKnife and the ITknife nano for traction-assisted esophageal ESD. Patients with early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were eligible for this study. The primary outcome was the total procedure time. The secondary outcomes were submucosal dissection time, en bloc, and complete resection rates, perforation rate, and adverse events. Results Fifty patients were equally divided into two groups: the DualKnife group (D-group) and the ITknife nano group (I-group), and all underwent the assigned treatment. The I-group had significantly shorter total procedure time (36.8 vs. 60.7 min; P < 0.01) and submucosal dissection time (17.2 vs. 35.8 min; P < 0.01) than the D-group. The en bloc and complete resection rates were sufficiently high in both groups (100% and 100% in the D-group and 100% and 96% in the I-group, respectively). Significantly fewer hemostatic procedures due to intraoperative bleeding were performed in the I-group than in the D-group (0.2 vs. 1.4; P < 0.01). Delayed bleeding, perforation, or esophageal stricture did not occur in either group. The ITknife nano exhibited lower procedure time for traction-assisted esophageal ESD than the DualKnife, without increasing adverse events.

Comparison of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The complete and safe removal of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions is an area of concern. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) effectively removes these lesions compared with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD requires advanced techniques, longer procedure time, and high cost. Precutting EMR (EMR-P) is a modified EMR method that overcomes the limitations of EMR. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR-P and ESD in large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of cases in which 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions were resected at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital from January 2014 to December 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to control for possible confounders.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included in this study. After matching, 90 patients were assigned to each group. There were no significant difference in complete resection rates (92.2% vs 92.2%, P = 1.000), en bloc resection rates (95.6% vs 97.8%, P = 0.682), and mean size of lesions (22.9 ± 3.1 mm vs 23.0 ± 3.1 mm, P = 0.867) between EMR-P and ESD. Procedure time was significantly shorter with EMR-P (11.0 ± 6.5 min vs 37.0 ± 19.3 min, P < 0.001). The adverse events rate was not significantly different between both groups. No local recurrence occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR was not significantly different to ESD in terms of complete resection rate and en bloc resection rate for 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions without fibrosis. Furthermore, EMR-P has shorter procedure time than ESD. EMR-P could be considered one of standard treatments for large flat colorectal lesions.

Performance of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection coagulation syndrome: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome (PECS) in patients undergoing colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, parallel, superiority trial was conducted at 21 Japanese tertiary institutions. Patients with superficial colorectal lesions ≥20 mm and those undergoing ESD management for a single lesion were eligible. Patients with perforation during and after ESD were withdrawn. Before the ESD procedure, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either undergo conventional treatment (nonantibiotic group) or investigational treatment (antibiotic group). In the antibiotic group, 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam was administered just before, 8 hours after, and the morning after ESD. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PECS. The onset of PECS was defined as localized abdominal pain (both spontaneous pain and tenderness) and fever (≥37.6°C) or inflammatory response (leukocytosis [≥10,000 cells/μL] or elevated C-reactive protein level [≥.5 mg/dL]).

RESULTS

From February 5, 2019 to September 7, 2020, 432 patients were enrolled and assigned to the antibiotic group (n = 216) or nonantibiotic group (n = 216). After withdrawal of 52 patients, 192 in the antibiotic group and 188 in the nonantibiotic group were analyzed. PECS occurred in 9 of 192 patients (4.7%) in the antibiotic group and 14 of 188 patients (7.5%) in the nonantibiotic group, with an odds ratio of .61 (95% confidence interval, .23-1.56; P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative use of antibiotics was not effective in reducing the incidence of PECS in patients undergoing colorectal ESD. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000035178.).

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.

Endoscopic instruments and techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a less invasive local treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC).Areas covered: Japanese guidelines have recently expanded the endoscopic treatment indications for EGC. ESD is sometimes performed for lesions with a relative indication that has not previously been considered for ESD. ESD procedures are technically difficult, especially for larger and more invasive lesions. Complete resection and accurate histological assessment of EGC lesions are essential to evaluate endoscopic curability. Various endoscopic instruments, including three types of endoscopic knives and specific hemostatic forceps, have been developed, and endoscopic techniques, including the traction method, have been modified to simplify the procedure.Expert opinion: An insulated-tip knife with large tissue contact allows us to perform faster incisions, while a needle-type knife with minimal tissue contact allows us to perform precise incisions. Furthermore, a scissor-type knife with grasping tissues allows us to perform more secure incision. The traction method enables the operator to proceed with submucosal dissection procedures. In cases with small lesions, snaring can be used, as well as knife dissection. Understanding the features of each endoscopic instrument and technique is essential because appropriate selection and usage contribute to successful and safe ESD procedures.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed a systematic literature search of original endoscopy-related articles published during 2020 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study using 4 criteria: significance, novelty, impact on national health, and impact on global health. The 10 areas identified were as follows: artificial intelligence in endoscopy, coronavirus disease 2019 and GI practice, third-space endoscopy, lumen-apposing metal stents, single-use duodenoscopes and other disposable equipment, endosonographic needle technology and techniques, endoscopic closure devices, advances in GI bleeding management, improvements in polypectomy techniques, and bariatric endoscopy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2020.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket-creation method with single clip traction: a feasibility study

Background and study aims  The pocket-creation method (PCM) facilitates dissection of the central part of a tumor. We previously developed the PCM with clip traction (PCM-CT) to facilitate opening the mucosal pocket, which otherwise could become cumbersome. In the present study, we aimed to examine the feasibility of PCM-CT for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Patients and methods  PCM-CT was performed on 30 patients with early colorectal tumors from October 2019 to April 2020. PCM-CT allows efficient opening of the mucosal pocket by using the PCM to dissect the center of the lesion and then apply traction with a single clip after making a circumferential mucosal incision. Results  The median specimen major axis length, ESD time, ESD speed, and en bloc resection rate were 48 mm, 84 minutes, 20 mm ² /min, and 100 % (30/30), respectively. The success rates for the traction clip and median single-clip-traction time were 100 % (30/30) and 1.5 minutes, respectively. Conclusions  Colorectal ESD using PCM-CT is a simple and promising method.

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.

The pocket-creation method may facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colorectal sessile tumors

Background and study aims  Resecting large colorectal sessile tumors using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging because of severe submucosal fibrosis. Previously, we reported that ESD strategy using the pocket-creation method (PCM) is useful for large colorectal sessile tumors, but there are no large studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of the PCM for resection of large colorectal sessile tumors. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective review of 90 large colorectal sessile tumors in 89 patients who underwent ESD in our institution. Large colorectal sessile tumors were defined as polypoid lesions 20 mm or more in diameter. We divided them into PCM (n = 40) and conventional method (CM) groups (n = 50). The primary outcome measure was en bloc resection. The inverse-probability-treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to adjust for selection bias. Results  Both PCM and CM achieved high en bloc resection (100 % vs. 94 %, non-adjusted P  = 0.25, IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.19) and R0 resection rates (88 % vs. 78 %, non-adjusted P  = 0.28, IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.27). When PCM was used, the rate of pathologically negative vertical margins was significantly greater than with the CM (IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.045). The dissection time was significantly shorter (IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.025) and dissection speed faster (IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.013) using the PCM than when the CM was used. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (intraprocedural perforation and delayed bleeding, IPTW-adjusted P  = 0.68). Conclusion  Although en bloc resection and R0 resection rates were similar, PCM significantly increased the rate of negative vertical margins with rapid dissection for treatment of large colorectal sessile tumors.