Antigravity ESD - double-balloon-assisted underwater with traction hybrid technique

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.

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.

ESD with double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform versus standard ESD for management of colon polyps

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with the double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (DEIP) is a novel technique for removal of complex colon polyps (> 2 cm) or those located in anatomically difficult positions. DEIP helps create a therapeutic zone with improved visualization and stability, facilitating polyp removal. We aimed to compare the outcomes of DEIP with the conventional cap-assisted ESD (standard ESD) technique for colon polyp resection, in particular, the ability to complete the ESD procedure without resorting to hybrid ESD or piecemeal resection. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort of all patients who underwent colon ESD in a single large tertiary referral center between September 2016 and October 2019. Information was collected on patient demographics and study outcomes including procedure time, rates of en bloc and curative resection, operative and postoperative complications. All patients were followed up for 1 month after the procedure. Results  111 patients were included in the study (DEIP 60, standard ESD 51). There was no statistically significant difference between mean procedures time (± SD) in the two groups, mean (81.9 ± 35.4 min standard vs. 96.4 ± 42.2 min in DEIP). Mean polyp size (± SD) was similar between the two groups (7.6 ± 6.0 cm ² vs. 6.2 ± 5.5 cm ² , P  = .2). There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates or operative and postoperative complications between the two techniques. Conclusion  Procedure time was similar using both techniques. However, DEIP enabled the entire procedure to be performed using the ESD technique without resorting to snare resection, which may affect the en bloc and curative resection rate. There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates between the two groups, probably due to the small sample size.

Devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of residual and fibrotic colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

METHODS

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

RESULTS

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.