Clinical usefulness of the S-O clip during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult-to-access submucosal layer

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.

Risk Factors for Post-Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding and Efficacy of Carbazochrome Sodium Sulfonate: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Carbazochrome sodium sulfonate (CSS) is a hemostatic agent that reduces capillary permeability and enhances capillary resistance. However, its specific effects on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to assess the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding and the effect of CSS on colorectal ESD outcomes.

METHODS

First, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding using data from 1,315 lesions in 1,223 patients who underwent ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms at eight institutions. Second, patients were divided into CSS and non-CSS groups using propensity score matching, and their outcomes from colorectal ESD were analyzed.

RESULTS

The risk factors for post-colorectal ESD bleeding were identified as age of ≥70 years, tumor located in the rectum, tumor size of ≥40 mm, and post-ESD defect unclosure in both univariate and multivariate analyses. The CSS and non-CSS groups each consisted of 423 lesions after propensity score matching. The post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was 3.5% (15/423) and 3.3% (14/423) in the CSS and non-CSS groups, respectively, indicating no significant differences. Among patients with the high-risk factors for post-ESD bleeding, the administration of CSS also did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the post-ESD bleeding rate compared to the non-CSS group.

CONCLUSION

CSS administration is ineffective in preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding in both the general population and individuals at a high risk for such bleeding. Our results indicate the necessity to reconsider the application of CSS for preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding.

Novel devices for third-space endoscopy procedures

Third-space endoscopy (TSE) is a subspecialty in interventional endoscopy that exploits the submucosa as a working space for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases. Over recent years, TSE has emerged as a viable alternative to surgery for the treatment of various conditions. The rapid dissemination and adoption of TSE has been largely supported by the advent of novel devices aimed to improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. In this article, we review some of the recent developments in TSE devices and provide our initial experience with these instruments in clinical practice.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for tumors involving the ileocecal valve with extension into the terminal ileum: a multicenter study from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for tumors extending into the terminal ileum remain obscure. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for tumors involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) with extension into the terminal ileum.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (40 men; mean age, 67 years) with 68 tumors involving the ICV that were resected by ESD between December 2013 and December 2018 were included and classified into Group A (21 tumors with extension into the terminal ileum) and Group B (47 tumors without extension). ESD outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The clinical features of the patients and tumors were not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate (95% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.79), R0 resection rate (90% and 89%, respectively; p = 0.89), procedure time (95 ± 54 min and 94 ± 69 min, respectively; p = 0.64), postoperative bleeding rate (5% and 3%, respectively; p = 0.79), intraoperative perforation rate (0% and 4%, respectively; p = 0.34), delayed perforation rate (0% and 0%, respectively), or postoperative symptomatic stenosis rate (0% and 0%, respectively) between Groups A and B. No specific factors related to the outcomes of ESD were found by subgroup analysis according to the dominance and degree of circumference of the ICV. Local recurrence was observed in 1 patient in Group A who was retreated using ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for tumors involving the ICV with extension into the terminal ileum is safe and effective.

Factors for conversion risk of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a widely accepted treatment method for colorectal tumors; however, there are some persistent problems. This multi-center study aimed to characterize the risk factors for incomplete resection and perforation in standardized colorectal ESD procedures.

METHODS

This study included 2423 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for 2592 colorectal tumors between August 2013 and December 2018 at 11 institutions (1 academic hospital and 10 affiliated hospitals) from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We evaluated the risk factors for interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation of standardized colorectal ESD in relation to clinicopathologic and endoscopic characteristics.

RESULTS

The incidences of interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation were 0.7%, 2.9%, and 3.0%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for interruption: perforation during the procedure, deep submucosal invasion (> 1000 μm), poor scope operability, and severe submucosal fibrosis. The risk factors for piecemeal resection included poor scope operability, severe submucosal fibrosis, and procedure time (≥ 85 min). The risk factors for perforation during the procedure were severe submucosal fibrosis, poor scope operability, procedure time (≥ 85 min), and tumor size (≥ 40 mm). Independent risk factors for severe submucosal fibrosis included a history of biopsy and lesions located on the fold or flexure.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe submucosal fibrosis and poor scope operability are the common risk factors for interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation in standardized colorectal ESD.

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.

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.

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 and Ring-thread Traction Facilitates Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Non-experts

BACKGROUND/AIM

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a difficult technique. Counter-traction may facilitate the procedure but its efficacy in non-experts remains unclear. We determined the safety and efficacy of pocket creation and ring-thread traction (PRM) for non-expert colorectal ESD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively compared patients who underwent conventional colorectal ESD (C-group, n=50) or PRM (pocket creation, whole-circumferential cutting, ring-thread traction, submucosal dissection; PRM-group, n=48). All procedures were performed by four non-experts, each with ≤40 experiences of colorectal ESD.

RESULTS

Procedural time was significantly shorter in the PRM-group compared with the C-group (p=0.007), with less additional device usage (p<0.001). There also tended to be fewer perforation incidents and muscle injuries in the PRM-group. There were no significant differences in en bloc or R0 resection rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

PRM may be a safe, useful, and cost-effective technique for non-experts learning to perform colorectal ESD.

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.

Indications and outcomes of colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter 10-year study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a colorectal lesion resection procedure that includes both planned and salvage procedures. Previous colorectal hybrid ESD studies have involved single institutions or few operators over a short timeframe, and the size for indication has not been established. In this multicentre study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors that met the 30 mm lesion size criterion.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2018, colorectal hybrid ESD was performed for 172 lesions (diameter range, ≥ 20- < 30 mm) at Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between 56 and 116 lesions in planned and salvage groups, respectively. We also compared data between 2008 and 2013 (the first period) and 2014 and 2018 (the second period) to assess operator experience.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups (92.9% vs. 83.6%, respectively). Procedure time was shorter in the planned group (44.5 min) than in the salvage group (72.0 min, p < 0.01). The perforation rate was higher in the salvage group (21.6%) than in the planned group (0%, p < 0.01); however, the perforation rate during snaring in the salvage group was 1.8%. During the second period relative to the first period, we recorded a significantly higher complete en bloc resection rate (95.7% vs. 75.6%, respectively, p < 0.01) and experienced operator rate (75.5% vs. 53.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups during the second period (100% vs. 94.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Colorectal hybrid ESD, especially salvage hybrid ESD performed by experienced operators, is adoptable and safe for lesions with diameters ranging from ≥ 20 to < 30 mm.