Deep colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection using a modified clip and snare method incorporating a pre-looping technique

Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Low grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) are potential precancerous lesion of gastric neoplasms. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the first option for the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer (EGC). Traction is an effective method to improve efficiency, and reduce complications during ESD. In this study, we shared a useful traction method using the clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique (CSM-PLT) for precancerous lesion and EGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients received ESD combined with CSM-PLT or conventional ESD from June 2018 to December 2021 in Shenzhen People's hospital. The primary outcome was resection speed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were enrolled in ESD combined with CSM-PLT group and sixty-five patients in conventional ESD group respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable among two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate (97.6% vs. 98.5%, P = 1.000 and 97.6% vs. 96.9%, P = 1.000, respectively), operation costs (933.7 (644.1-1102.4) dollars vs. 814.7 (614.6-988.3) dollars, P = 0.107), and hospital stays (8.0 ± 3.1 days vs. 7.3 ± 3.2 days, P = 0.236). In addition, no significant difference was observed with respect to complications (P>0.05). However, the resection speed of ESD combined with CSM-PLT was faster than that of conventional ESD (11.3 (9.4-14.9) mm2/min vs. 8.0 (5.8-10.9) mm2/min, P < 0.001), particularly lesions located in anterior wall and lesser curvature. In addition, the association between ESD combined with CSM-PLT and resection speed was still supported after propensity matching scores (PMS).

CONCLUSIONS

CSM-PLT can help to improve ESD efficiency without reducing the en bloc resection rate or increasing the incidence of complications.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms at "Challenging Sites" Using a Double-Balloon Endoluminal Interventional Platform: A Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at "challenging sites" such as the cecum, ascending colon, and colonic flexures could be difficult even for expert endoscopists due to poor endoscope stability/maneuverability, steep angles, and thinner wall thickness. A double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (EIP) has been introduced in the market to fasten and facilitate ESD, particularly when located at difficult sites. Here, we report our initial experience with an EIP comparing the outcomes of an EIP versus standard ESD (S-ESD) at "challenging sites".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on consecutive patients with colonic lesions located in the right colon and at flexures who underwent ESD in our tertiary referral center between March 2019 and May 2023. Endoscopic and clinical outcomes (technical success, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, procedure time, time to reach the lesion, and adverse events) and 6-month follow-up outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 139 consecutive patients with lesions located at these challenging sites were enrolled (EIP: 31 and S-ESD: 108). Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. En bloc resection was achieved in 92.3% and 93.5% of patients, respectively, in the EIP and S-ESD groups. Both groups showed a comparable R0 resection rate (EIP vs. S-ESD: 92.3% vs. 97.2%). In patients undergoing EIP-assisted ESD, the total procedure time was shorter (96.1 [30.6] vs. 113.6 [42.3] minutes, p = 0.01), and the mean size of the resected lesions was smaller (46.2 ± 12.7 vs. 55.7 ± 17.6 mm, p = 0.003). The time to reach the lesion was significantly shorter in the EIP group (1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 8.2 ± 2.7 min, p ≤ 0.01). Procedure speed was comparable between groups (14.9 vs. 16.6 mm2/min, p = 0.29). Lower adverse events were observed in the EIP patients (3.8 vs. 10.2%, p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

EIP allows results that do not differ from S-ESD in the resection of colorectal superficial neoplasms localized in "challenging sites" in terms of efficacy and safety. EIP reduces the time to reach the lesions and may more safely facilitate endoscopic resection.

Advancing endoscopic traction techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection

Traction techniques have emerged as a desirable "second-hand" while performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), enabling adequate visualization of submucosal tissue and vasculature, which allows for safe and efficient dissection. Multiple traction techniques have been developed over the years, and these can be broadly divided into internal and external traction techniques. This arsenal of techniques allows for traction that is personalized to the location of the lesion undergoing ESD. Mastering traction techniques requires structured training, and understanding of the benefits and pitfalls of each technique. Future research and development efforts need to focus on pathways and curriculums for trainees to master the currently available endoscopic traction techniques and provide avenues for the development of newer traction modalities.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical usefulness of the S-O clip during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult-to-access submucosal layer

Background and study aims  In colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the S-O clip improves the accessibility to the submucosal layer of the colon. However, its safety and usefulness in difficult colorectal ESDs are unclear. Thus, in this study, we aimed to assess the effectiveness of the S-O clip in colorectal ESD in the difficult-to-access submucosal layer. Patients and methods  From January 2016 to December 2016, 189 consecutive cases of colorectal ESD were performed at Hiroshima University Hospital before the S-O clip was introduced. Between January 2017 and June 2018, among 271 consecutive colorectal ESD cases, 41 cases were performed colorectal ESD using the S-O clip. We compared outcomes between the two groups (41 cases with S-O clip [use group] and 189 cases without S-O clip [non-use group]) using propensity score matching. Results  Prior to propensity score matching, 41 cases with the S-O clip (use group) and 189 cases without the S-O clip (non-use group) were extracted. The degree of submucosal fibrosis was more severe and the procedure time was longer in the use group than in the non-use group. In the use and non-use groups, en bloc resection (100 % vs. 94.7 %) and complete en bloc resection (100 % vs. 92.6 %) rates were satisfactory. After propensity score matching, 33 cases in each group were extracted. As a result, complete en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the use group than in the non-use group (100 % vs. 84.9 %). Conclusion  The S-O clip is effective and can be used safely in colorectal ESD in the difficult-to-access submucosal layer.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive therapeutic procedure to remove larger polyps or early non-metastatic lesions. It has long been used in Asia, but is now fast growing in popularity in the West. There are multiple challenges faced by ESD practitioners. While the practice of ESD in gastric lesions is relatively well established, the oesophagus with its narrow lumen and challenging workspace, and the colon with its tortuous course and folds are more challenging frontiers. The nature of performing a procedure endoscopically means that conventional methods offer no mechanism for providing counter-traction while performing dissection, impeding visibility and increasing the rate of complications. There are a multitude of tools available to those performing ESD for the different stages of the procedure. This article reviews the accessories currently used in regular ESD practice including the knives used to cut and dissect lesions, the cap and hood devices used to improve visibility and safety, injection fluids to lift the submucosal plane, haemostatic devices, generators, and finally, emerging traction apparatus. There is some evidence behind the use of these tools, however, ESD remains the domain of a small number of practitioners and the practice relies heavily on expert experience. Evolution of the ESD toolbox will make the procedure more accessible to more endoscopists, which in turn will drive the development of a more substantial evidence base to evaluate efficacy and safety of the multitude of tools.

A snare combined with endoclips to assist in endoscopic submucosal dissection for intraepithelial neoplasia in the entire colon and rectum

OBJECTIVE

The use of mucosal traction to assist in colonic and rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), especially for deep colonic ESD, is challenging. We developed a method of inverse insertion of a snare into the endoscopic working channel to deliver it into the colon together with the endoscope. With this method, two types of mucosal traction, per-anal external traction (PET) and per-anal internal traction (PIT), could be achieved using a snare with endoclips to assist in ESD (ESD-SE). Here, we aimed to examine its safety and feasibility.

METHODS

From January 2017 to September 2018, 50 colonic and rectal intraepithelial neoplasias in 50 patients were treated with ESD-SE. Data on lesion location and size, operation time, en bloc resection and R0 resection rates, and operative complications were collected.

RESULTS

Among 50 lesions, 15 lesions were located in the deep colon/proximal colon, and 35 lesions were in the distal colon. The median (interquartile range) size of lesions, submucosal dissection time, and total operation time were 4.5 (3.0-5.0) cm, 32 (18-81) min, and 50 (33-108) min, respectively. All lesions were completely resected, with R0 resection rates of 100%. No intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred. Postoperative pathology revealed 40 and 10 cases of high-grade and low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach using insertion of a selective snare into the colon together with the endoscope, especially into the deep colon, was safe and simple. Use of the snare combined with endoclips could effectively assist in total colonic ESD. Further research is warranted.

Recent advances in the management of large and complex colonic polyps

The endoscopic management of large colonic polyps is a rapidly changing field. Rapid evolution in endoscopic techniques and skills has resulted in diminishing the role of surgery in the management of larger and complex polyps. This is resulting in organ preservation for many who otherwise would have undergone surgery. However, it also poses new challenges. This article reviews these new advances and the developments which are overcoming these difficulties.

Recent Development of Techniques and Devices in Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now a well-established endoscopic treatment for early-stage colorectal neoplasms, especially in Asian countries, including Japan. Despite the spread of colorectal ESD, there are still situations in which achieving successful submucosal dissection is difficult. Various novel techniques and devices have been developed to overcome these difficulties, and past reports have shown that some of these strategies can be applied to colorectal ESD. We review several recent developments in the field. The techniques reviewed include the pocket creation method and traction methods and the devices reviewed include the overtube with balloon and electrosurgical knives with water-jet function. These improved techniques and devices can facilitate safer, more reliable ESDs and expand its applicability and acceptability all over the world.

Management of early colonic neoplasia: where are we now and where are we heading?

There have been considerable advances in the endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplasia. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection and full thickness resection techniques is changing the way benign disease and early cancers are managed. This article reviews the evidence behind these new techniques and discusses where this field is likely to move in the future. Areas covered: A PubMed literature review of resection techniques for colonic neoplasia was performed. The clinical and cost effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is examined. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and knife assisted resection is described and issues around training reviewed. Efficacy is compared to both EMR and transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The future is considered, including full thickness resection techniques and robotic endoscopy. Expert commentary: The perceived barriers to ESD are falling, and views that such techniques are only possible in Japan are disappearing. The key barriers to uptake will be training, and the development of educational programmes should be seen as a priority. The debate between TEMS and ESD will continue, but ESD is more flexible and cheaper. This will become less significant as the number of endoscopists trained in ESD grows and some TEMS surgeons may shift across towards ESD.

Recent traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is problematic with regard to en bloc and curable resection rates. Advancements in endoscopic techniques have enabled novel endoscopic approaches such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which has overcome some EMR problems, and has become the standard treatment for gastrointestinal tumors. However, ESD is technically difficult. Procedure time is longer and complications such as intraoperative perforation and bleeding occur more frequently than in EMR. Recently various traction methods have been introduced to facilitate ESD procedures, such as clip with line, external forceps, clip and snare, internal traction, double scope, and magnetic anchor. Each method must be used appropriately according to the anatomical characteristics. In this review we discuss recently proposed traction methods for ESD based on the characteristics of various anatomical sites.