Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

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.

Safe and effective hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection with ALL IN ONE snare in porcine gastric model (with video)

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) using a newly developed ALL IN ONE (AIO) snare. This was a matched control study in a porcine model. Five paired simulated stomach lesions 2-2.5 cm in size were removed by H-ESD using an AIO snare or conventional ESD (C-ESD) using an endoscopic knife. The outcomes of the two procedures were compared, including en-bloc resection rates, procedure times, intraprocedural bleeding volumes, muscular injuries, perforations, thicknesses of the submucosal layer in resected specimens, and stomach defects. All simulated lesions were resected en-bloc. Specimens resected by H-ESD and C-ESD were similar in size (7.68 ± 2.92 vs. 8.42 ± 2.42 cm2; P = 0.676). H-ESD required a significantly shorter procedure time (13.39 ± 3.78 vs. 25.99 ± 4.52 min; P = 0.031) and submucosal dissection time (3.99 ± 1.73 vs. 13.1 ± 4.58 min; P = 0.003) versus C-ESD; H-ESD also yielded a faster dissection speed (241.37 ± 156.84 vs. 68.56 ± 28.53 mm2/min; P = 0.042) and caused fewer intraprocedural bleeding events (0.40 ± 0.55 vs. 3.40 ± 1.95 times/per lesion; P = 0.016) than C-ESD. The thicknesses of the submucosal layer of the resected specimen (1190.98 ± 134.07 vs. 1055.90 ± 151.76 μm; P = 0.174) and the residual submucosal layer of the stomach defect (1607.94 ± 1026.74 vs. 985.98 ± 445.58 μm; P = 0.249) were similar with both procedures. The AIO snare is a safe and effective device for H-ESD and improves the treatment outcomes of gastric lesions by shortening the procedure time.

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

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.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

Novel single-operator through-the-scope traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection: Outcomes of a multicenter randomized pilot ex-vivo study in trainees with limited endoscopic submucosal dissection experience (with video)

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a technically demanding procedure. The pilot study aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel single‐operator through‐the‐scope dynamic traction device among trainees with limited endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) experience.

Methods

Randomized, controlled, pilot study comparing traction‐assisted ESD (T‐ESD) versus conventional ESD (C‐ESD) in an ex‐vivo porcine stomach model. Trainees were randomized to group 1 (T‐ESD followed by C‐ESD) and group 2 (C‐ESD followed by T‐ESD). Lesions were created on the gravity‐dependent area of the stomachs. The primary outcome was submucosal dissection speed. Secondary outcomes included differences in en‐bloc resection, adverse events, and workload, assessed by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX).

Results

Five trainees performed two T‐ESD and two C‐ESD each, for a total of 20 procedures. Submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the T‐ESD group compared to the C‐ESD group (43.32 ± 22.61 vs. 24.19 ± 15.86 mm²/min; p = 0.042). En‐bloc resection was achieved in 60% with T‐ESD and 70% with C‐ESD (p = 1.00). The muscle injury rate was higher in the C‐ESD group (50% vs. 10%; p = 0.21) with 1 perforation reported with C‐ESD and none with T‐ESD. NASA‐TLX physical demand was lower with T‐ESD compared to C‐ESD (4.5 ± 2.17 vs. 6.9 ± 2.50; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

T‐ESD resulted in faster submucosal dissection and less physical demand when compared to C‐ESD, as performed by trainees in an ex‐vivo gravity‐dependent model. Future studies are needed to assess its role in human ESD cases.

Endoscopic submucosal resection: a technique using novel devices for incision and resection of neoplastic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established techniques for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. Limitations of EMR are low en bloc resection rates for larger lesions, resulting in frequent recurrences. Major disadvantages of ESD are technical difficulty and long procedure times. We evaluated technical feasibility and safety of newly designed devices for en bloc resection of lesions measuring 20-40 mm in a technique called endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR).

METHODS

This case series included 93 lesions from different locations (11 stomach, 25 colon, 57 rectum) with a median size of 29 mm (range 10-70). ESR was performed using two novel instruments for circumferential mucosal incision and deep submucosal resection, respectively.

RESULTS

Resection by ESR was feasible in all cases. En bloc and R0 rates were insufficient when ESR was attempted without prior circumferential mucosal incision, but were 70 % and 63 %, respectively, when mucosal incision was done before application of the submucosal resection device. We observed three complications (two delayed bleedings, one microperforation) but no cases of emergency surgery or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated feasibility and excellent safety of ESR using two novel devices for en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasia. The technique offered relative technical ease and high efficacy.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases

Background and study aims  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods  The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results  Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm ² /min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm ² /min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions  U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: outcomes and predictors of recurrence

Background and study aims  The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions in Western communities is unclear and its adoption is still limited. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated with colorectal ESD in a tertiary Western center. Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated by ESD for superficial colorectal lesions between February 2011 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were en-bloc and R0 resection rates, procedural time, adverse events (AEs), and need for surgery. The curative resection rate was assessed for submucosal invasive lesions. Results  A total of 327 consecutive patients, median age 69 years (IQR 60-76); 201 men (61.5 %) were included in the analysis. Of the lesions, 90.8 % were resected in an en-bloc fashion. The rate of R0 resection was 83.1 % (217/261) and 44.0 % (29/66) for standard and hybrid ESD techniques, respectively. Submucosal invasion and piecemeal resection independently predicted R1 resections. A total of 18(5.5 %) intra-procedural AEs (perforation:11, bleeding:7) and 12(3.7 %) post-procedural AEs occurred (perforation:2, bleeding: 10). Eighteen adenoma recurrences per 1,000 person-years (15cases, 5.6 %) were detected after a median follow-up time of 36 months. All recurrences were detected within 12 months. No carcinoma recurrences were observed. R1 resection status and intra-procedural AEs independently predicted recurrences with seven vs 150 recurrences per 1,000 person-years in the R0 vs R1 group, respectively. Conclusions  Colorectal ESD is a safe and effective option for managing superficial colorectal neoplasia in a Western setting, with short and long-terms outcomes comparable to Eastern studies. En-bloc R0 resection and absence of intra-procedural AEs are associated with reduced risk of recurrence.

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.

Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection with SOUTEN in gastric lesions: An ex vivo porcine model basic study

BACKGROUND

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) that comprises mucosal incision and partial submucosal dissection followed by snaring in a planned manner, has been developed for endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal neoplasms to overcome the technical barrier of ESD. Although the superiority of hybrid ESD with SOUTEN, a single multifunctional device, over conventional ESD has been indicated, the actual effect of snaring itself remains unclear since SOUTEN could be applied to hybrid ESD group, but not to the conventional ESD group, due to ethical issue in clinical practice.

AIM

To determine whether and how hybrid ESD was superior to conventional ESD in the endoscopic treatment of gastric lesions in an ex vivo porcine model basic study.

METHODS

Sixteen endoscopists participated in this basic study in August 2020 at Kyushu University, performing 32 procedures each for hybrid ESD and conventional ESD. Mock lesions (10-15 mm, diameter) were created in the porcine stomach. The primary outcome was total procedure time and secondary outcomes were en bloc or complete resection, perforation, procedure time/speed for both, mucosal incision, and submucosal dissection. Factors associated with difficulty in ESD including longer procedure time, incomplete resection, and perforation, were also investigated. Categorical and continuous data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

RESULTS

The median total procedure time of hybrid ESD was significantly shorter than that of conventional ESD (median: 8.3 min vs 16.2 min, P < 0.001). Time, speed, and the amount of hyaluronic acid during submucosal dissection were more favorable in hybrid ESD than conventional ESD (time, 5.2 min vs 10.4 min, P < 0.001; speed, 43.7 mm²/min vs 23.8 mm²/min, P < 0.00; injection volume, 1.5 mL vs 3.0 mL, P < 0.001), although no significant differences in those factors were observed between both groups during mucosal incision. There was also no significant difference between both groups in the en bloc/complete resection rate and perforation rate (complete resection, 93.8% vs 87.5%, P = 0.67; perforation, 0% vs 3.1%, P = 1). Selection of conventional ESD as the treatment method was significantly associated with difficulties during ESD (odds ratio = 10.2; highest among factors).

CONCLUSION

Hybrid ESD with SOUTEN improves the treatment outcomes of gastric lesions. It also has the potential to reduce medical costs since SOUTEN is a single multifunctional device that is inexpensive.