Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection in saline solution with rubber-band countertraction for a cecal polyp extending into a diverticulum

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.

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.

The learning experience for endoscopic submucosal dissection in a non-academic western hospital: a single operator's untutored, prevalence-based approach

Background

Studies of learning experience in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) commonly originate from the East. Little is known about the performance of ESD in low-volume western centers. Furthermore, it is unclear whether ESD can be self-taught without a tutored approach.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive ESDs, performed in an untutored prevalence-based fashion by a single operator at a private Greek hospital from 2016-2020. Out of 60 lesions, standard ESD was applied for 54 and enucleation for 6; 41 were mucosal and 19 submucosal; 3 esophageal, 24 gastric, one duodenal, 12 colonic, and 20 rectal.

Results

Pathology revealed carcinoma (n=14), neuroendocrine tumor (n=7), precancerous lesion (n=27), or other submucosal tumors (n=12). The rates of en bloc and R0 resection were 98% and 91%, respectively. The median resection speed was <3 cm²/h for the first 20 cases, but improved progressively to ≥9 cm²/h after 40 cases. Two patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for colonic perforation, and one received a blood transfusion because of delayed bleeding (serious adverse event rate: 5%). No deaths occurred. The median hospital stay was 1.3 days. Variables associated with improvement in ESD speed during the second period of the study were the application of countertraction and the experience acquired through other endosurgical techniques.

Conclusions

ESD was safe and effective in a low-volume center, with an acceptable adverse events rate. At least 40 mixed cases were needed to achieve a high resection speed. Additive experience gained through other endosurgical procedures probably contributed to the improvement in performance.

Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), represent the standard of care for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. In 2012 a novel technique called underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) was described by Binmoeller and colleagues. This substantial variation from the standard procedure was afterwards applied at endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) and recently proposed also for peroral endoscopic myotomy (U-POEM) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (U-EFTR).

METHODS

This paper aims to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature related to supporting the underwater resection techniques with the aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Based on the current literature U-EMR appears to be feasible and safe. Comparison studies showed that U-EMR is associated with higher "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for colonic lesions, but lower "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for duodenal non-ampullary lesions, compared to standard EMR. In contrast to U-EMR, little evidence supporting U-ESD are currently available. A single comparison study on gastric lesions showed that U-ESD had shorter procedural times and allowed a similar "en-bloc" resection rates compared to standard ESD. No comparison studies between U-ESD and ESD are available for colonic lesions. Finally, only some anecdotal experiences have been reported for U-POEM or U-EFTR, and the feasibility and effectiveness of these techniques need to be further investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective studies are necessary to better explore the advantages of underwater techniques compared to the respective standards of care, especially in the setting of U-ESD where consistent data are lacking and where standardization of the technique is needed.