Efficacy of traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clip-and-thread technique: A prospective randomized study

The Outcome of Snare-Assisted Traction Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for the Gastric Fundus Submucosal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria

Aim: To explore the feasibility and effectiveness of snare-assisted traction endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) on gastric fundus submucosal tumors (SMTs). Methods: The clinical and pathological data of patients with gastric SMTs who underwent EFTR treatment at the Endoscopy Center of Kaifeng Central Hospital from January 2018 to June 2023 were collected. Among them, 36 patients underwent snare-assisted traction EFTR (SAT-EFTR) and 46 patients underwent standard EFTR (S-EFTR). The clinical baseline data, operative data, adverse events, and follow-up results of the two groups were collected and compared. Results: All patients successfully completed EFTR technique. There were 34 male and 48 female patients, with an average age of (56.62 ± 11.31) years. The average operation time was shorter in the snare-assisted EFTR group than the S-EFTR group (73.39 ± 31.33 minutes versus 92.89 ± 37.57 minutes, P = .014). In addition, the resection speed of the snare-assisted EFTR group was also significantly faster than that of the S-EFTR group (4.04 ± 2.23 versus 2.48 ± 0.93 mm2/min, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the age, gender, lesion size, postoperative fasting duration, and postoperative hospitalization stay between the two groups (P > .05). One patient in the SAT-EFTR group developed delayed postoperative perforation which was close with purse‑string suture technique. All patients were discharged successfully, and there was no recurrence or metastasis during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Snare-assisted traction of EFTR could shorten the operation time, reduce the difficulty of the operation, and improve the efficiency of the operation. At the same time, this method is simple and easy to learn, more suitable for beginners, and worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Multicenter prospective randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the pocket-creation method with and without single-clip traction of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

The pocket-creation method (PCM) was developed to overcome the technical difficulties of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), although opening the pocket remains challenging. We developed a novel technique of PCM with single-clip traction (PCM-CT), which uses a reopenable clip as a traction device to maintain stability during the procedure. No prospective study has compared the efficacy of PCM-CT and PCM. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of PCM-CT vs. PCM in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at four Japanese institutions. Patients with superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions were included following Japanese guidelines for colorectal cancer. Seven moderately experienced endoscopists performed the ESD procedures using either PCM-CT or PCM.

RESULTS

100 patients were enrolled in the study. Compared with PCM, PCM-CT achieved significantly faster mean (SD) dissection speed (21.4 [10.8] vs. 27.0 [14.5] mm2/min [95%CI 0.5 to 10.7], P = 0.03), and reduced the mean procedure time (81.8 [57.9] vs. 64.8 [47.6] minutes [95%CI -38.2 to 4.3], P = 0.12) and pocket-opening time (37.8 [33.0] vs. 30.0 [28.9] minutes [95%CI -20.2 to 4.6], P = 0.22). En bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between the two groups (100% vs. 100%, P >0.99; 100% vs. 96%, P = 0.50, respectively). No significant differences were observed in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ESD facilitated by the novel PCM-CT method appeared to be significantly faster than PCM. Both methods achieved high R0 resection rates.

Traction Devices May Not Affect the Vertical Margin Distance in the Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Introduction The usefulness of traction devices (TDs) in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has not been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of using a TD on the vertical margin (VM) distance in the ESD of rectal NETs. Methods In this single-center, retrospective study, we included patients with rectal NETs who were treated with ESD during 2013-2023. They were divided into TD and non-TD groups. One pathologist remeasured the VM distance (primary outcome) and the depth of submucosal invasion (SM depth). Secondary outcomes were margins, resection time, delayed bleeding, and perforation. First, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) to assess the usefulness of TD for VM distance. Then, we used multiple regression analysis to identify factors affecting the VM distance. Results The TD and non-TD groups comprised 24 and 117 lesions, respectively. Patients in the TD group were significantly younger than those in the non-TD group (P = 0.003). In the TD and non-TD groups, the VM distance was 150 μm and 100 μm, respectively (P = 0.70). Only resection time significantly differed between groups, shorter in the TD group (P = 0.005). Twenty-two cases in each group were matched after PSM, yielding no significant differences in VM distance. The use of a TD was not an independent predictor of VM distance (P = 0.65), but age (P < 0.001) and SM depth (P = 0.003) were. Conclusion Using a TD does not seem to affect the VM distance in ESD for rectal NETs.

Characteristics of positive horizontal margins in patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of colorectal neoplasms, but occasionally results in positive horizontal margins (HMs). However, the site of the resected specimen that tends to be positive for HM has not been investigated. We aimed to clarify the characteristics associated with HMs in lesions resected en bloc with ESD.

Methods

Patients with colorectal neoplasms who underwent en bloc resection with ESD were included in this study. The patients were divided into negative HMs (HM0) and positive or indeterminate HMs (HM1) groups. The characteristics associated with HM1 resection were investigated. In addition, the local recurrence rate during endoscopic follow-up for >6 months after ESD was observed.

Results

In total, 201 lesions were analyzed in 189 patients (HM0, 189 lesions; HM1, 12 lesions). The HM1 group had a significantly larger median lesion diameter (25 vs. 55 mm; p < 0.001) and more lesions with >50% circumference than did the HM0 group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the prevalence of severe fibrosis was significantly higher in the HM1 group than in the HM0 group (p < 0.001). Positive horizontal sites of the resected specimens were more frequent at the oral and anal sites than at the lateral sites. No local recurrences were observed in either group.

Conclusions

The characteristics associated with HM1 depended on lesion size, particularly lesions with >50% circumference, and submucosal fibrosis.

Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for colorectal lesions, the traction method (T-ESD) allows the lesion to be stabilized with easier dissection. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results on the clinical outcomes of T-ESD as compared with C-ESD. We conducted a meta-analysis to compile the data.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for RCTs evaluating C-ESD versus T-ESD for colorectal tumors. The end points of interest were procedure time (min), resection speed (mm²/min), R0 resection, en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 566 patients (C-ESD n=284, T-ESD n=282) were included. The mean age was 67±10 y and 60% were men. As compared with the T-ESD technique, the C-ESD group was associated with longer procedure time (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23, P<0.00001) and lesser resection speed (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.06, P=0.04). No significant difference was found in the 2 groups with respect to R0 resection rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P=0.87), en bloc resection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, P=0.35), delayed bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.59, P=0.55) and perforation (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 6.27, P=0.16).

DISCUSSION

On meta-analysis, pooled procedure time was significantly faster with T-ESD compared with C-ESD. The clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Removal of a large rectal polyp with endoscopic submucosal dissection-trans-anal rectoscopic assisted minimally invasive surgery hybrid technique: A case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be used for the en-bloc removal of superficial rectal lesions; however, the lack of a traction system makes the procedure long and difficult in the presence of extensive lesions.

CASE SUMMARY

A large polyp occupying 2/3 of the rectal circumference and extending 5 cm in length was removed by ESD with the help of laparoscopic forceps introduced via trans-anal rectoscopic assisted minimally invasive surgery, a disposable platform designed to aid in transanal minimally invasive surgery. Traction of the polyp by forceps during the operation was dynamic, and applied at various points and in various directions. The polyp was removed en-bloc without complications in 1 h and 55 min. A sigmoidoscopy performed 50 d later showed normal healing without polyp recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The technique presented here could overcome the issues caused by lack of traction during ESD for rectal lesions.

Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training of endoscopic techniques

BACKGROUND

Novel endoscopic techniques used in the treatment of gastric lesions with local submucosal fibrosis need preclinical evaluation and training due to safety limitations. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to establish an animal model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions and assess its feasibility in the evaluation and training of endoscopic techniques.

METHODS

In six experimental beagles, a 50% glucose solution was injected into three submucosal areas of the fundus, body, and antrum of the stomach to create gastric local fibrotic target lesions (experimental group). On post-injection day (PID) 7, the injection sites were assessed endoscopically to confirm the presence of submucosal fibrosis formation, and the dental floss clip traction assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (DFC-ESD) procedure was performed on the gastric local fibrotic target lesions to confirm its feasibility after endoscopic observation. The normal gastric mucosa of six control beagles underwent the same procedure (control group). All the resected specimens were evaluated by histological examination.

RESULTS

All 12 beagles survived without postoperative adverse events. On PID 7, 16 ulcer changes were observed at the injection sites (16/18) under the endoscope, and endoscopic ultrasonography confirmed the local submucosal fibrosis formation in all ulcer lesions. The subsequent DFC-ESD was successfully performed on the 32 gastric target lesions, and the mean submucosal dissection time in the ulcer lesions was greater than that in the normal gastric mucosa (15.3 ± 5.6 vs. 6.8 ± 0.8 min; P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of en bloc resection, severe hemorrhage, or perforation between the two groups. Histological analysis of the ulcer lesions showed the absence of epithelial or muscularis mucosae and extensive submucosal fibrous tissue proliferations compared with normal gastric mucosa. Overall, endoscopists had high satisfaction with the realism and feasibility of the animal model.

CONCLUSION

We developed a novel animal model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions to simulate difficult clinical situations, which strongly appeared to be suitable for the preclinical evaluation and learning of advanced endoscopic techniques.

Entire traction using clip-and-nylon ring to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection of a laterally spreading tumor with fibrosis in the rectum

A 78-year-old woman with hematochezia underwent a colonoscopy and found a 2 × 2-cm laterally spreading tumor (LST) in the rectum, 3 cm from the anus. Because of the risk related to anus preservation and the potential operative trauma, the patient refused surgery and was referred for ESD treatment. Here, we applied a novel entire traction method to deal with this subset of tumors.

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION:  ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Clip-and-line traction method for difficult ERCP cannulation due to choledochocoele

Video 1Clip-and-line traction method for difficult ERCP cannulation due to choledochocoele.

Factors associated with increased duration of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumors: a 22-year retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used in several countries. However, it is associated with technical difficulties. Rectal ESD is considered an intermediate step in colorectal ESD training. Nevertheless, some rectal lesions require a longer procedure time than usual, and the reason for the prolonged time taken for these specific lesions remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the factors associated with prolonged rectal ESD.

METHODS

In total, 483 rectal lesions resected using ESD from February 1998 to June 2021 were investigated. Prolonged ESD procedure time was defined as the time from the first submucosal injection to lesion removal exceeding 120 minutes, whereas other procedures were defined as average ESD procedure time. Clinicopathologic and endoscopic findings were compared between the 2 groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four lesions were resected using a prolonged ESD procedure time of 202.9 ± 92.3 minutes, whereas 339 lesions were resected using an average ESD procedure time of 77.8 ± 29.4 minutes. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumors involving the dentate line (P = .026), resection size ≥50 mm (P < .001), invasion depth ≥T1b (P = .006), and circumferential range ≥2/3 (P = .001) were independent risk factors for prolonged-duration ESDs, regardless of whether the procedure was performed by an expert or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that the location of a lesion involving the dentate line, resection size ≥50 mm, circumferential range ≥2/3, and invasion depth ≥T1b are the independent risk factors for prolonged ESD procedure time.

Effectiveness of water pressure method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by novice endoscopists

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging for novice endoscopists. Not only the underwater conditions but also active use of water pressure with the water pressure method (WPM) can help widen the submucosal layer. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of WPM in colorectal ESD, especially for novice endoscopists. Methods This study was ex vivo and enrolled three novices. Each endoscopist performed conventional ESD (C-ESD) and ESD with WPM (WPM-ESD) 10 times on an excised bovine rectum. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (54 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 42-67 vs. 45 minutes, IQR 34-55, P  = 0.035). Although no significant difference in the activation time of electrical surgical unit (ESU) during the procedure was noted, the interval time during the procedure at which the ESU was not activated was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group (52 minutes, IQR 40-65 vs. 42 minutes, IQR 32-52, P  = 0.030) than in the C-ESD group. Moreover, the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (8.0 minutes, IQR 6.0-10 vs. 5.0 minutes, IQR 3.0-6.0, P  < 0.001). Conclusions The present study reveals that the WPM method significantly shortens the procedure times for novices in colorectal ESD, especially the interval time, which refers to the time spent creating the field of view, and the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa.

Effects of traction methods in inexperienced endoscopists during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains a technical challenge, but traction devices show promise in making this procedure easier. However, the efficacy of traction techniques for colorectal ESD is still unknown for inexperienced endoscopists.

METHODS

We selected 400 patients who underwent colorectal ESD performed by four inexperienced endoscopists. Each patient in the traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) group was matched to a patient in the conventional ESD (C-ESD) group according to propensity scores.

RESULTS

One-to-one propensity score-matching analysis created 87 matched pairs. The self-completion rate in the TA-ESD group is significantly higher than that in the C-ESD group (100% [87/87] vs. 92% [80/87], p < 0.001). The median resection speed was significantly faster in the TA-ESD group than that in the C-ESD group (27 mm2/min [IQR, 19.5-47.3] vs.18 mm2/min [IQR, 13.5-33.8], p < 0.001) and the procedure time in the TA-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (33 min [IQR, 27-47] vs.53 min [IQR, 38-73], p < 0.001). However, the histologic complete resection rate was not significantly different between the TA-ESD and C-ESD groups (93.1% [6/87]) vs. 96.6% [3/87], p < 0.1888, respectively). The en bloc resection rate (96.6%) and perforation rate (4.6%) were equivalent between the TA-ESD group and the C-ESD group.

CONCLUSION

Traction techniques seem to improve resection speed and self-completion rate of colorectal ESD for inexperienced endoscopists.

Difficult colorectal polypectomy: Technical tips and recent advances

Colonoscopy has been shown to be an effective modality to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) development. CRC reduction is achieved by detecting and removing adenomas, which are precursors of CRC. Most colorectal polyps are small and do not pose a significant challenge for trained and skilled endoscopists. However, up to 15% of polyps are considered “difficult”, potentially causing life-threatening complications. A difficult polyp is defined as any polyp that is challenging for the endoscopist to remove owing to its size, shape, or location. Advanced polypectomy techniques and skills are required to resect difficult colorectal polyps. There were various polypectomy techniques for difficult polyps such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater EMR, Tip-in EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or endoscopic full-thickness resection. The selection of the appropriate modality depends on the morphology and endoscopic diagnosis. Several technologies have been developed to aid endoscopists in performing safe and effective polypectomies, especially complex procedures such as ESD. These advances include video endoscopy system, equipment assisting in advanced polypectomy, and closure devices/techniques for complication management. Endoscopists should know how to use these devices and their availability in practice to enhance polypectomy performance. This review describes several useful strategies and tips for managing difficult colorectal polyps. We also propose the stepwise approach for difficult colorectal polyps.

Device-assisted traction methods in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and options for difficult cases

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure has a longer procedure time and higher perforation rate than endoscopic mucosal resection owing to technical complications, including a poor field of vision and inadequate tension for the submucosal dissection plane. Various traction devices were developed to secure the visual field and provide adequate tension for the dissection plane. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated that traction devices reduce colorectal ESD procedure time compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD), but they had limitations, including a single-center fashion. The CONNECT-C trial was the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the C-ESD and traction device-assisted ESD (T-ESD) for colorectal tumors. In the T-ESD, one of the device-assisted traction methods (S–O clip, clip-with-line, and clip pulley) was chosen according to the operator’s discretion. The median ESD procedure time (primary endpoint) was not significantly different between C-ESD and T-ESD. For lesions ≥ 30 mm in diameter or in cases treated by nonexpert operators, the median ESD procedure time tended to be shorter in T-ESD than in C-ESD. Although T-ESD did not reduce ESD procedure time, the CONNECT-C trial results suggest that T-ESD is effective for larger lesions and nonexpert operators in colorectal ESD. Compared with esophageal and gastric ESD, colorectal ESD has some difficulties, including poor endoscope maneuverability, which may be associated with prolonged ESD procedure time. T-ESD may not effectively improve these issues, but a balloon-assisted endoscope and underwater ESD may be promising options and these methods can be combined with T-ESD.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Facilitating Techniques Among Non-experts: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The dissemination of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been limited by its technical complexity and safety profile, particularly among non-experts. Various techniques and devices have facilitated the performance of ESD, but their yield and role in the path to learning ESD remain unclear.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by querying MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Japan Medical Abstracts Society specifically for comparative studies investigating the impact of assigned ESD techniques vs. conventional techniques among non-experts in ESD (< 50 ESD procedures). Procedural outcomes of efficacy, efficiency, and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 46 studies evaluating 54 cohorts in which a total 237 non-experts performed 2461 ESDs conventionally, and 1953 ESDs using an assigned ESD technique (knives, countertraction, miscellaneous techniques). The majority of studies were from East Asia (67%), single-center (96%), observational in design (61%), in an animal model (57%), and gastric location (63%). The most studied techniques were countertraction techniques (48% cohorts) and scissor knives (15% cohorts), both of which commonly enhanced efficiency of ESD, and less so efficacy or safety. Techniques found to be beneficial in experts were more likely to be beneficial in non-experts (70% concordance) than vice versa (47% concordance).

CONCLUSION

Based on the currently available literature, countertraction techniques and scissor knives should be considered for early incorporation into ESD training by non-experts. Several aspects of ESD training remain understudied, including techniques in Western non-experts, educational resources, and several commonly cited techniques. These areas should guide future investigation to enhance the pathway to learning ESD.

Dexmedetomidine is safe and effective for reducing intraprocedural pain in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for the resection of colorectal intramucosal lesions. This study was performed to examine the safety and effectiveness of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) in the anesthesia regimen of patients with colorectal lesions undergoing ESD.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 287 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal lesions in our institution from January 2015 to December 2021. Outcomes including the frequency of intraprocedural pain and adverse events were compared between the DEX and no DEX groups. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for each clinical factor of intraprocedural pain. Intraprocedural pain was defined as patient-reported abdominal pain or body movement during the procedure.

Results

The incidence of intraprocedural pain was significantly lower in the DEX than in the no DEX group (7% vs. 17%, p = 0.02). The incidence of hypotension was also significantly higher in the DEX group (7% vs. 0%, p = 0.01), but no cerebrovascular or cardiac ischemic events occurred. In the univariate analyses, the diameter of the resected specimen, procedure time, no use of DEX, and total midazolam dose was associated with intraprocedural pain. The midazolam dose and DEX administration were significantly negatively correlated and the diameter of resected specimen and procedure time were significantly positively correlated. Multivariate logistic regression showed that no use of DEX was independently associated with intraprocedural pain (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Adding DEX to the anesthesia regimen in patients undergoing colorectal ESD appears to be safe and effective for reducing intraprocedural pain.

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.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

Training in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States: The Current Paradigm

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training in Japan is pursued through a designated master-apprentice, organ-based stepwise training model. However, applying a similar program to the United States is not a practical strategy due to the significant differences in the training system and disease prevalence. To incorporate the ESD training into the current advanced endoscopy fellowship program, the use of recently developed techniques and technologies to improve the efficiency of ESD is ideal. The ESD training program in the United States should be prevalence-based, with increased involvement of trainees depending on their objectively assessed competency levels.

Effectiveness of a novel traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Among all types of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms, colorectal lesions are recognized as one of the most difficult locations to operate, due to the limited operation space, physiological bends, poor visualization of the submucosal dissection plane sheltered by colorectal crinkle wall, and the thin intestinal mucosa layer which is easy to perforation. The purpose of this prospective study is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a novel endoscopic traction technique in assisting the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure in colorectal lesions.

METHOD

A total of 117 patients with colonic lesions who underwent endoscopic treatment were enrolled between August 2020 and January 2021 at the endoscopic center of Beijing Chao-yang Hospital of Capital Medical University. Based on whether traction device was used during the operation, 60 and 57 patients were assigned to the conventional ESD group and clips and rubber band triangle traction-assisted ESD group (CRT-ESD, in which three clips and a rubber band were used to form an elastic triangular traction device), respectively. The total procedure time (TPT), submucosal dissection time (SDT), submucosal dissection speed (SDS), and rate of adverse events of the two groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

After excluding patients who did not undergo treatment (conventional ESD, 1; CRT-ESD, 4), 112 patients were included in the study (conventional ESD, 59; CRT-ESD, 53). The baseline characteristics of the patients were well balanced between the two groups. The TPT (58.71 ± 26.22 min vs 33.58 ± 9.88 min, p < 0.001) and SDT (49.24 ± 23.75 min vs 26.34 ± 8.75 min, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the conventional ESD group and CRT-ESD group. The CRT-ESD group had significantly higher SDS than that of the traditional ESD group (0.54 ± 0.42 cm2/min vs 0.89 ± 0.40 cm2/min, p < 0.001). There were 4 (6.8%) cases of perforation in the traditional ESD group, and no perforation occurred in traction-assisted ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional ESD, CRT-ESD with clip and rubber band is both safer and more effective in the treatment of colorectal lesions.

Efficacy of a Traction Device for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using a Scissor-Type Knife: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although safe, colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using a scissor-type knife has a slow resection speed. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a traction device to hasten the resection speed.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at 3 Japanese institutions. Patients with a 20-50-mm superficial colorectal tumor were enrolled and randomly assigned to a conventional-ESD (C-ESD) group or a traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) group. The primary outcome was the resection speed.

RESULTS

The C-ESD and T-ESD groups comprised 49 and 48 patients, respectively. Although the mean resection speed was not significantly different in the entire cohort between the groups (23.7 vs 25.6 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.43), it was significantly faster with T-ESD than with C-ESD at the cecum (32.4 vs 16.7 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean resection speed of tumors ≥30 mm tended to be faster by T-ESD than by C-ESD (34.6 vs 27.8 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.054). The mean procedure time of T-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (47.3 vs 62.3 minutes, respectively; P = 0.03). The en bloc (100% vs 100%), complete (98.0% vs 97.9%), and curative resection (93.9% vs 91.7%) rates were similar between the 2 groups. Perforation and delayed hemorrhage occurred in only 1 patient each in the T-ESD group.

DISCUSSION

Although the resection rates were sufficiently high and adverse event rates were extremely low in both the groups, the use of a traction device for ESD in the proximal colon and for large lesions may increase the resection speed.

Robotic-assisted vs non-robotic traction techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective approach with higher en bloc resection and complete resection rate for superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically challenging and associated with several adverse events, such as bleeding or perforations. The single channel flexible endoscope’s intrinsic limitations in preserving visualization of the submucosal dissection plane as compared to laparoscopic surgery are the most common cause of complications during the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique. As a result, traction techniques were created as the endoscope’s second helping hand in order to improve the effectiveness of the endoscopic submucosal dissection method. Trainees can master endoscopic submucosal dissection methods more quickly by using traction techniques. The anatomical location of the lesion plays a major role in determining which traction technique should be employed. An appealing way of traction is robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection, and various types of endoscopic robots that allow bimanual operation are currently being developed. The advent of robot-assisted endoscopic technology ushers in a new era of endoscopic submucosal dissection, and with it come its own unique challenges that remain to be elucidated. Future research and development efforts are needed to focus on pathways and curriculums for trainees to master the currently available traction techniques and provide avenues for the development of newer traction modalities. In this article, we discuss evolution, characteristics, technological improvements and clinical comparisons of both robotic and non-robotic endoscopic traction techniques used in endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Eine neue Traktionsvorrichtung (S-O-Clip) zur Erleichterung der endoskopischen Submukosa-Dissektion von Tumoren im Bereich der Ileozökalklappe

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method that can be used for en bloc resection, regardless of the size and form of the lesion. The special location of ileocecal tumors leads to insufficient counter-traction and poor field of vision, making ESD difficult. An S-O clip has been developed to simplify the attachment procedure, eliminating interference with the endoscope and improving accessibility.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was a 70-year-old man who presented with abdominal pain and bloating. A colonoscopy revealed a flat-elevated-type lesion on the ileocecal valve, with the oral side of the lesion having progressed to the terminal ileum. The traction direction was adjusted from distal to proximal during the procedure using the S-O clip. Finally, with the help of the S-O clip, the tumor was safely removed and collected.

CONCLUSION

The S-O clip was successful in ESD of a colorectal tumor. By removing and re-anchoring the loaded ring, the S-O clips allowed the adjustment of traction direction from distal to proximal during ESD.

The usefulness of a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by non-expert endoscopists in a porcine model (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an optimal treatment for colorectal tumors; however, it is technically difficult, especially for non-experts. Therefore, a device that helps non-experts perform colorectal ESD would be beneficial. A double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform (DEIP) was recently developed to assist colorectal ESD through endoscope stabilization and traction. This study assessed the usefulness of colorectal ESD using the DEIP (DEIP-ESD) by endoscopists, including non-experts, in a living porcine model.

METHODS

Two pigs were used to perform eight DEIP-ESD and eight conventional cap-assisted ESD (C-ESD) procedures. Three experts and five non-experts each resected one lesion using DEIP-ESD and one using C-ESD. We evaluated the treatment outcomes and performed stratified analyses between the experts and non-experts.

RESULTS

Dissection speed was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (13.3 mm²/min vs 28.5 mm²/min, P = 0.002). However, the total procedure time did not differ significantly between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD. In the stratified analyses, the dissection speed of non-experts was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (10.9 mm²/min vs 25.1 mm²/min, P = 0.016), while that of experts increased in DEIP-ESD but to a lesser extent (19.1 mm²/min vs 28.8 mm²/min, P = 0.1). The total procedure time did not differ between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD for both experts and non-experts. The self-completion rate of non-experts also increased in DEIP-ESD. Moreover, the number of muscularis propria injuries induced by non-experts was fewer in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

DEIP could facilitate colorectal ESD by improving dissection efficiency without increasing adverse events, especially when performed by non-experts.

Effectiveness of clip-and-thread traction-assisted duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity score-matched study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) remain controversial because the procedure is technically challenging. Moreover, the effectiveness of clip-and-thread traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) for SNADETs has not been assessed. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of duodenal TA-ESD and conventional ESD for SNADETs.

METHODS

SNADETs treated with conventional ESD or TA-ESD between April 2017 and March 2021 at Saitama Medical University International Medical Center were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 49 cases of conventional ESD and 32 cases of TA-ESD for SNADETs. Using a propensity score-matched design, we selected 26 pairs of cases with conventional ESD and TA-ESD. In the unmatched cohort, patients treated with TA-ESD were characterized by a higher R0 (no tumor identified at the lateral or vertical margins) resection rate (P = .004), more frequent poor submucosal lifting because of fibrosis (P = .014), and shorter follow-up period (P = .0004) than patients treated with conventional ESD. In the propensity score-matched pairs, patients treated with TA-ESD were characterized by a higher rate of R0 resection (P = .021) and a shorter follow-up period (P = .0061). The findings regarding R0 resection rates were confirmed by multivariate logistic regression models, which found a higher odds ratio (OR) for R0 resection in patients who underwent TA-ESD than in patients who underwent conventional ESD both in the unmatched cohort (OR, 17.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-178.8; P = .018) and in the propensity score-matched pairs (OR, 26.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-460.2; P = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest TA-ESD may increase the rate of R0 resection in patients with SNADETs in comparison with conventional ESD.

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.

Performance of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection coagulation syndrome: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome (PECS) in patients undergoing colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, parallel, superiority trial was conducted at 21 Japanese tertiary institutions. Patients with superficial colorectal lesions ≥20 mm and those undergoing ESD management for a single lesion were eligible. Patients with perforation during and after ESD were withdrawn. Before the ESD procedure, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either undergo conventional treatment (nonantibiotic group) or investigational treatment (antibiotic group). In the antibiotic group, 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam was administered just before, 8 hours after, and the morning after ESD. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PECS. The onset of PECS was defined as localized abdominal pain (both spontaneous pain and tenderness) and fever (≥37.6°C) or inflammatory response (leukocytosis [≥10,000 cells/μL] or elevated C-reactive protein level [≥.5 mg/dL]).

RESULTS

From February 5, 2019 to September 7, 2020, 432 patients were enrolled and assigned to the antibiotic group (n = 216) or nonantibiotic group (n = 216). After withdrawal of 52 patients, 192 in the antibiotic group and 188 in the nonantibiotic group were analyzed. PECS occurred in 9 of 192 patients (4.7%) in the antibiotic group and 14 of 188 patients (7.5%) in the nonantibiotic group, with an odds ratio of .61 (95% confidence interval, .23-1.56; P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative use of antibiotics was not effective in reducing the incidence of PECS in patients undergoing colorectal ESD. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000035178.).

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: How to be more efficient?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows an "en bloc" resection with safety margins (R0 resection) regardless of the size of the lesion. However, while R0 brings a real benefit for the patient, it is not considered sufficient by many experts to justify the technical difficulties and the longer procedure time compared to piecemeal mucosectomy. The aims of this review are to provide several technical and strategical tips to help you save time and become comfortable during ESD procedures. ESD is divided into several intertwined phases: injection, incision, access to the submucosae, and submucosal dissection itself. During injection there are some mistakes that should not be made: a superficial injection, or on the contrary, a too deep injection. A good needle and good injection technique are mandatory. Some techniques, such as repeated injection or prolonged lifting solution, can help maintain the lift. After this step, mucosal incision can be made, taking care to have a good margin to allow an R0 resection. Starting the mucosal incision from a small point allows calibration of the depth of the incision and then obtaining a nice incision. Trimming is also very important to widen submucosal access. Then comes the submucosal dissection itself. Strategies such as the tunnel strategy or the pocket creation method can help to facilitate dissection, but more importantly, traction systems have become unavoidable, especially in the stomach and colon. Most common complications are bleeding and perforation, and they usually can be managed endoscopically.

Effects of the combined use of a scissor-type knife and traction clip on endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background and study aims  This study evaluated the technical aspects of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with the Clutch Cutter (CC) (Fujifilm Co., Tokyo, Japan), a scissor-type knife, and the S-O clip (SO) as a traction clip, and compared the safety and efficacy to ESD using a needle-type knife. Patients and methods  This was a single-center retrospective study. In Study 1, we evaluated 125 ESD patients: 60 using the SO and CC (SO group) and 65 using the CC (CC group). In Study 2, we evaluated 185 ESD patients: the CC group (N = 65) and 120 using the Flush knife BT-S (Flush group) (Fujifilm Co., Tokyo, Japan). In both studies, the clinicopathological features and therapeutic outcomes were compared using a propensity score-matched analysis. Results  In 36 pairs of matched patients in Study 1, the rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, perforation, and postoperative bleeding (POB) were 97.2 %, 88.9 %, 2.8 %, and 0 %, respectively, for the SO group and 100 %, 91.7 %, 0 %, and 0 % for the CC group (not significant). The mean procedure time for the SO group among less-experienced endoscopists was significantly shorter than in the CC group (42 vs. 65 minutes, P  = 0.036). In 49 pairs of matched patients in Study 2, the rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, perforation, and POB were 100 %, 95.8 %, 0 %, and 0 %, respectively, for the CC group and 98.0 %, 95.8 %, 0 %, and 2.0 % for the Flush group (not significant). The mean procedure time in the CC group among less-experienced endoscopists was significantly shorter than in the Flush group (52 vs. 67 minutes, P  = 0.038). Conclusions  CC and the combined use of CC and SO reduced colorectal ESD procedure time among less-experienced endoscopists.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

Safety and efficacy of water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors with submucosal fibrosis (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal neoplasms with submucosal fibrosis are the most challenging targets of endoscopic resection. Water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection (WP-ESD) is a recently introduced procedure that has several advantages over conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of WP-ESD for fibrotic colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study investigated 133 colorectal neoplasms expected to have submucosal fibrosis that were resected by WP-ESD or C-ESD between April 2012 and April 2020. Eighty-seven lesions after endoscopic or surgical treatment, 18 with biopsy scar with fold convergence and 28 in patients with ulcerative colitis, were included. The differences in treatment outcomes, including procedure time and adverse event proportions, between the WP-ESD and C-ESD groups were analyzed. The clinical course after perforation using WP-ESD was also evaluated, including postprocedural multidetector CT findings obtained immediately after WP-ESD.

RESULTS

Severe submucosal fibrosis was observed in 96 lesions (72.2%). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WP-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (43.5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 32.8-73] vs 72 minutes [IQR, 45-105]; P = .0041). The multivariate analysis revealed WP-ESD as an independent factor for a short procedure time (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-6.55). The proportions of post-ESD electrocoagulation syndrome (11.6% vs 13.1%) and perforation (20.4% vs 22.8%) were similar between the groups. Four of 11 patients with perforation who underwent WP-ESD showed fluid collection on postprocedural multidetector CT images.

CONCLUSIONS

WP-ESD can shorten procedure time for treating fibrotic colorectal neoplasms.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20-30 mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large polyps provides a high en bloc resection rate, accurate pathological diagnosis, and low recurrence rate. However, ESD requires advanced techniques, and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an alternative. We investigated the efficacy and safety of UEMR for 20-30 mm colorectal lesions compared with ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated systematically collected data of patients who underwent UEMR or ESD for 20-30 mm sessile colorectal lesions. Outcome measures were the incidence of local recurrence, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, and incidence of adverse events. We performed propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting adjustment to control for possible confounders.

RESULTS

We evaluated 125 patients undergoing UEMR and 306 patients undergoing ESD. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 74 lesions in each group. UEMR had a shorter procedure time than ESD [6.7 min (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.3-8.1 min) vs 64.8 min (95% CI, 57.4-72.2 min), respectively]. Although the en bloc resection rate with UEMR was inferior to ESD [61% (95% CI, 49-72%) vs 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), respectively], there was no significant difference in the local recurrence rate between the procedures [0% (95% CI, 0-4.0%) in each group]. Inverse probability weighting adjustment revealed that neither ESD nor UEMR had a significant association with local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 20-30  mm colorectal lesions was comparable with ESD regarding long-term outcomes, with a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en bloc resection rate.

Propensity score-matched analysis of endoscopic resection for recurrent colorectal neoplasms: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Local residual/recurrent colorectal lesions after endoscopic resection (ER) are difficult to treat with conventional ER. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are reportedly effective. We investigated the appropriate indications of ESD and UEMR for recurrent colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective, observational study was conducted at a tertiary cancer institute. Patients who underwent UEMR or ESD for residual/recurrent colorectal lesions after ER from October 2013 to February 2019 were enrolled. Propensity score matching was performed between the UEMR and ESD groups to compare the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 30 UEMRs and 21 ESDs were performed. Median (range) diameter of the lesions was 8 mm (2-22 mm) in UEMR and 15 mm (2-58 mm) in ESD. Median procedure time in UEMR was significantly shorter than that of ESD (4 min [2-15 min] vs 70 min [17-193 min], P < 0.001). En bloc and complete resection rates of ESD were significantly higher than that of UEMR (73% vs 100%, 41% vs 81%, respectively). No adverse events occurred with UEMR, but there were two cases (10%) of delayed perforation with ESD. Neither group reported recurrence after treatment. Propensity score-matched cases showed significantly shorter procedure time and hospitalization period in UEMR than in ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of UEMR and ESD were comparable. UEMR could be a useful salvage therapy for small local residual/recurrent colorectal lesions after ER with shorter procedure time and hospitalization period.

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Endoscopy to Diagnose and Prevent Digestive Cancers in Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome patients could benefit from various recommendations to prevent digestive cancers. In this review, we summarize the criteria to identify Lynch syndrome in patients with digestive cancers. We detail endoscopic screening procedures in patients with Lynch syndrome for gastric, small bowel, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers. We review the precise modalities of endoscopic follow-up, particularly the discrepancies that exist between the guidelines of the various scientific societies. We discuss the treatment of colorectal cancers in Lynch syndrome cases and patient adherence to endoscopic follow-up programs.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for a previously tattooed colonic laterally spreading tumor

Video 1Traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the multiloop method for a previously tattooed laterally spreading tumor in the sigmoid colon.

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.

Prevention and Management of Complications and Education in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered superior to endoscopic mucosal resection as an endoscopic resection because of its higher en bloc resection rate, but it is more difficult to perform. As ESD techniques have become more common, and the range of treatment by ESD has expanded, the number of possible complications has also increased, and endoscopists need to manage them. In this report, we will review the management of critical complications, such as hemorrhage, perforation, and stenosis, and we will also discuss educational methods for acquiring and improving ESD skills.

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.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection reduces procedure time and risk of serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is a technically demanding procedure with prolonged procedure times and higher risk of adverse events. To overcome the procedural difficulty of ESD, several traction-assisted techniques (T-ESD) have been developed to improve visualization of the submucosa in hopes to facilitate safe and effective dissection. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis that compares short-term outcomes (30-day) of T-ESD to C-ESD.

METHODS

Clinical studies published up to April 2020 comparing the efficacy and safety of T-ESD and C-ESD were identified using electronic bibliographic searches. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Outcomes of interests were procedure time, rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and rates of adverse events. Fixed effect and random effect model were used to calculate pooled mean difference for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 2574 patients were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 2582 lesions (1292 T-ESD and 1290 C-ESD). Pooled estimates of T-ESD showed shorter procedure times (weighted mean difference = -20.35 min, 95% CI -27.51 to -13.19, p < 0.001), higher R0 resection rates (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, p = 0.004) and lower perforation rates (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01, p =  < 0.0001). No significant differences were seen in en bloc rates and bleeding risk between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Traction-assisted ESD results in shorter procedure time, improved R0 resection rates and lower risk of perforation as compared to conventional ESD.

Efficacy of early clip-with-line method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains demanding due to technical difficulties and high risk of perforation. Most of the reported traction methods are initiated after creating a mucosal flap, which is time consuming. To obtain a good visualization at the mucosal incision stage, we developed the early clip-with-line (ECL) method. This method was started immediately after injection of sodium hyaluronate solution into the submucosal layer. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of the ECL method for colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all cases of colorectal ESDs (41 cases in total) performed from January 2017 to February 2019 in our institution. From January 2017 to August 2018, 27 of these cases were performed using conventional (non-ECL) ESDs, while from September 2018 onwards, the remaining 14 cases were performed using the ECL method. Retrospective comparison between the ECL group and the non-ECL group was conducted in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between two groups. Procedure time (median [range]) was significantly shorter in the ECL group than in the non-ECL group (66 [29-131] min vs 90 [30-410] min; P = 0.03). As for adverse events, no case of perforation occurred in the ECL group, whereas perforation was observed in 7.4% (2/27) cases in the non-ECL group (no significant difference).

CONCLUSION

Early clip-with-line method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection reduced procedure time.