Balloon overtube can improve maneuverability of the endoscope during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

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.

Endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia

Gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) is one of the uncommon causes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Major treatment of GAVE includes pharmacotherapy, endoscopy, and surgery. The efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy have not been sufficiently confirmed; and surgery is just considered when conservative treatment is ineffective. By comparison, endoscopy is a common treatment option for GAVE. This paper reviews the currently used endoscopic approaches for GAVE, mainly including argon plasma coagulation (APC), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and endoscopic band ligation (EBL). It also summarizes their efficacy and procedure-related adverse events. The endoscopic success rate of APC is 40-100%; however, APC needs several treatment sessions, with a high recurrence rate of 10-78.9%. The endoscopic success rates of RFA and EBL are 90-100% and 77.8-100%, respectively; and their recurrence rates are 21.4-33.3% and 8.3-48.1%, respectively. Hyperplastic gastric polyps and sepsis are major adverse events of APC and RFA; and Mallory-Weiss syndrome is occasionally observed after APC. Adverse events of EBL are rare and mild, such as nausea, vomiting, esophageal or abdominal pain, and hyperplastic polyps. APC is often considered as the first-line choice of endoscopic treatment for GAVE. RFA and EBL have been increasingly used as alternatives in patients with refractory GAVE. A high recurrence of GAVE after endoscopic treatment should be fully recognized and cautiously managed by follow-up endoscopy. In future, a head-to-head comparison of different endoscopic approaches for GAVE is warranted.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.

Efficacy and suitable indication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a balloon-assisted endoscope

Background and Aim

Cases of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with poor maneuverability are often encountered. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of balloon‐assisted endoscopy (BAE) for such cases.

Methods

We confirmed maneuverability preoperatively in 400 consecutive cases of colorectal ESD performed at a single center from April 2011 to April 2018. A total of 83 deep colon cases judged as having poor maneuverability were retrospectively reviewed; 54 cases underwent BAE with a single balloon endoscope (group B), and 29 cases underwent conventional procedures without BAE (group C). Tumor size, procedure duration, dissection speed, en bloc resection rate, histology, and associated complications were compared between groups.

Results

The mean tumor size, tumor invasiveness, fibrosis, and complications did not differ between groups. Although the en bloc resection rate did not differ (both 98%), the groups significantly differed with regard to the R0 resection rate (B: 96%; C: 83%; P = 0.048). Overall, the procedure duration (B: 51 min; C: 70 min; P = 0.17) and dissection speed (B: 19.4 mm²/min; C: 17.4 mm²/min; P = 0.13) were not significantly different between groups. However, the dissection speed for lesions in the cecum/ascending colon was significantly faster in group B than in group C (B: 22.3 mm²/min; C: 11.3 mm²/min; P = 0.037).

Conclusions

In cases of colorectal ESD with poor maneuverability, the use of BAE contributed to an improvement in the R0 resection rate. In addition, BAE contributed to a quicker dissection speed for lesions located in the cecum/ascending colon.

Short-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms: An observational study

OBJECTIVES

With endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic surgery, treatment for colorectal neoplasms has become minimally invasive. However, few studies have compared endoscopic submucosal dissection with laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms, excluding deeply invasive cancer on preoperative diagnosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients who had undergone endoscopic submucosal dissection or laparoscopic surgery for colorectal neoplasms between November 2005 and December 2015. We limited patients who were not suspected preoperatively to have aggressive submucosal invasion >1,000 μm.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and 37 underwent laparoscopic surgery. Cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection tended to involve rectal neoplasms more often than colonic neoplasms, shorter operative times, and shorter lengths of hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery. The perforation rate during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection in the early period (November 2005 to December 2010) and late period (January 2011 to December 2015) was 14.8% and 2.9%, respectively. In all cases of perforation during colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the ability to maneuver the endoscope was compromised. Though tumors were larger in patients who underwent rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection, the perforation and postoperative bleeding rates with rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection were both 3.2%. The most common indication for laparoscopic surgery was difficulty performing endoscopic submucosal dissection. Serious complications were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonic neoplasms, laparoscopic surgery should be considered when endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically difficult in the early period. For rectal neoplasms, endoscopic submucosal dissection is desirable even for those of large size.