Endoscopic closure using over-the-scope clip for delayed colonic perforation after hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection

Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), colonoscopic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) has the advantages of higher en bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates of colorectal neoplasms. Therefore, C-ESD is considered an effective treatment method for laterally spread tumors and early colorectal cancer. However, C-ESD is technically more difficult and requires a longer procedure time than EMR. In addition to therapeutic efficacy and procedural difficulty, safety concerns should always be considered when performing C-ESD in clinical practice. Bleeding and perforation are the main adverse events associated with C-ESD and can occur during C-ESD or after the completion of the procedure. Most bleeding associated with C-ESD can be managed endoscopically, even if it occurs during or after the procedure. More recently, most perforations identified during C-ESD can also be managed endoscopically, unless the mural defect is too large to be sutured with endoscopic devices or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Delayed perforations are quite rare, but they require surgical treatment more frequently than endoscopically identified intraprocedural perforations or radiologically identified immediate postprocedural perforations. Post-ESD coagulation syndrome is a relatively underestimated adverse event, which can mimic localized peritonitis from perforation. Here, we classify and characterize the complications associated with C-ESD and recommend management options for them.

Clinical and technical outcomes of endoscopic closure of postendoscopic submucosal dissection defects: Literature review over one decade

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which enables curative en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms, has been an attractive minimally invasive surgery during the past two decades. Large post-ESD defects must be carefully managed to prevent adverse events (AEs). The major AEs comprise delayed bleeding (DB) and delayed perforation (DP), and overall AEs comprise DB plus DP. This review aimed to clarify the clinical efficacy and technical outcomes of endoscopic prophylactic closure for post-ESD defects. We identified studies involving ≥10 patients up to March 2022 in which endoscopic closure was applied for gastric, duodenal, and colorectal post-ESD defects. In the stomach, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure than non-closure group. In the duodenum, total rates of overall AEs, DB, and DP were significantly lower in the closure group. In the colorectum, total rates of overall AEs and DB were significantly lower in the closure group. Closure techniques, categorized into three groups (clip-based techniques, mechanical clipping, and surgical stitch-based techniques), were illustrated. Endoscopic closure demonstrated a certain ability to reduce DB after gastric, duodenal, and colorectal ESD as well as DP after duodenal ESD. Considering closure-associated costs, the indications and limitations of closure techniques should be further investigated.