Endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms: A single center experience in north China

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Resections Larger than 10 cm: Outcomes from a Portuguese Center

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive technique for en bloc resection of superficial neoplastic lesions, independent of their size. However, for giant gastrointestinal superficial neoplasia, the risk of invasive cancer is higher, and ESD is typically challenging. Despite the increasing literature on giant resections, data on their efficacy and safety are still lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe ESD outcomes from a Portuguese center, compare them with other international studies, and analyze the possible risk factors influencing outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-center review using a prospectively collected database, including patients with rectal ESD resections larger than 10 cm, between January 2016 and December 2021. Clinical, procedural, and pathological data were collected and analyzed. Revision of the literature for comparison with international results was done through PubMed. Data were analyzed and statistical analysis performed, using Microsoft Excel and SPSS, to identify significant risk factors.

Results

The study included 15 rectal resections, with a mean diameter of 140.9 mm (range 105-270), corresponding to lesions of 125.9 mm (87-238). The overall en bloc resection rate was 100% (n = 15). According to ESGE criteria, procedure was considered curative in 53.3% (n = 8), non-curative with high risk in 13.3% (n = 2), and local-risk recurrence in 33.3% (n = 5). Adverse events occurred in 26.7% (n = 4): 1 minor perforation and 3 stenosis, most endoscopically managed. For non-curative resections with local-risk recurrence, surveillance without adjuvant therapy was performed in all cases. For high-risk non-curative resections, surgery was performed in 1 patient and adjuvant chemoradiation therapy in another. Follow-up (mean 16 months) demonstrated a recurrence rate of 0%. Statistical analysis revealed resection size ≥20 cm as a risk factor for perforation (p value 0.067), and involvement of ≥90% of the circumference and procedural time ≥4 h as risk factors for stenosis (p value 0.029 and 0.009, respectively).

Conclusions

Although challenging, ESD for giant lesions seems effective and safe, with a still relevant rate of complications, which were mostly endoscopically treated. Rigorous characterization of lesions is crucial to predict and avoid complications or the need for therapy escalation.

Assessment of physical stress during the perioperative period of endoscopic submucosal dissection

The advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is that it is less invasive than surgery. ESD is one of the best treatments for older patients as surgery in this age group of patients is difficult. However, it is unclear how much lower the physical stress of ESD is compared with that of surgery. Thus, objective methods are required to assess physical stress in patients who have undergone ESD. The current review of ESD aimed to summarize the recent advancements in the assessment of physical stress during the perioperative period, focusing on changes in energy metabolism and serum opsonic activity (SOA). Based on metabolic changes, resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured using an indirect calorimeter. The stress factor calculated from the REE and the basal energy expenditure computed using the Harris-Benedict equation can be used to assess physical stress. SOA was assessed using the chemiluminescence method, wherein the use of chemiluminescent probes (i.e., lucigenin and luminol) allowed quantification of reactive oxygen species generated by neutrophils. Using an auto luminescence analyzer, the results were evaluated based on the maximum light emission and area under the emission curve. These quantifiable results revealed the minimal invasiveness of ESD.

Risk factors for adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is already an established treatment for superficial colorectal tumors. However, its technical difficulty and high adverse events rates, compared to endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection, are a concern to some specialists and have probably contributed to discouragement in its widespread adoption. The debate mentioned above stimulated us to perform a systematic review aiming to identify risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events. We conducted this study following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement and registered in the PROSPERO (University of York) international database (CRD42016042625). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and LILACS for the publications focused on risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events from inception until April 2020. We included a total of 22 qualified studies in this analysis. We found that fibrosis had an odds ratio (OR) for perforation of 2.90 [95% confidence interval, (1.83-4.59)], right colon location of 2.35 (1.58-3.50), colonic location of 2.20 (1.44-3.35) and larger size of 2.17 (1.47-3.21), as well as one protective factor, the endoscopist experience OR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86). For bleeding, we considered rectal location a risk factor [OR = 3.55 (2.06-6.12)]. Through the several meta-analyses that we performed in this article, we could summarize the main risk factors for perforation and bleeding on colorectal ESD. Therefore, we provide insightful information for clinical judgment on regions where colorectal ESD is already widespread and help in the learning process of this challenging technique.

Predicting and managing complications following colonoscopy: risk factors and management of advanced interventional endoscopy with a focus on colorectal ESD

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been introduced widely in Western and Asian countries. The management of the perforation during ESD is crucial.

AREAS COVERED

The rate of intraprocedural perforation, risk factors, prevention, and management of perforation during ESD and EMR were discussed in this review. The perforation rate in ESD and EMR depending on the lesion size is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The knowledge regarding the risk factor and techniques to manage perforation is important during colorectal ESD and EMR. The development of novel suturing techniques devices is key for colorectal ESD in the future.

Perforation causing abdominal compartment syndrome after colonoscopic polypectomy: A case report

•

Colonoscopic perforation with Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a rare complication that should be kept in mind.

•

ACS deteriorates hemodynamic status and respiratory system rapidly, and may be fatal if left untreated.

•

Decompression for ACS including paracentesis and surgical intervention.

Introduction

Bowel perforation is a potential complication of colonoscopy, and colonoscopic polypectomy has a higher risk. Perforation may be responsible for abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), which causes multiple organ dysfunction.

Case presentation: Here, we have described the case of a woman who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy. Subsequent to the procedure, she developed progressive abdominal distension, dyspnea, drowsy consciousness, and hypotension. Her physical examination revealed increased abdominal circumference, coldness, and paleness of the lower limbs. ACS were accordingly diagnosed, most likely to have resulted from bowel perforation. Thus, decompression with a large-bore intravenous catheter and emergent laparotomy were performed. A 0.5-cm lesion over the cecum was discovered and repaired. The patient tolerated the procedure well and underwent intensive care. She was discharged on day 7 after operation, and she had completely recovered.

Discussion

ACS is a rare complication followed by perforation after colonoscopy. Multiple organ dysfunction may occur from ACS, affecting the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and gastro-intestinal system. In our case, we used a small-sized catheter for decompression but in vain due to the kinking of the catheter. ACS was eventually resolved via surgical intervention. Thus, when ACS occurred, emergent decompression with an appropriate size of catheter and surgical intervention are recommended.

Conclusion

Colonoscopy perforation must be considered as a contributing factor to ACS; accordingly, early recognition and intervention may avoid deterioration of ACS.