Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Update on Best Practice

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

A strategy combining endoscopic hand-suturing with clips for closure of rectal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection with or without myectomy (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic hand-suturing (EHS) has been preliminarily demonstrated to be effective in closing defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but it is not easily performed. We proposed a strategy combining EHS with clips (EHS-Clips) and explored its effectiveness in closing rectal defects after ESD or ESD with myectomy (ESD-ME).

METHODS

In this observational study, data from patients with rectal defects closed using EHS-Clips were reviewed. EHS-Clips refers to a strategy where defects are sutured as much as possible by EHS first, with clips being used to close the remaining parts of defects that cannot be completely sutured. The primary endpoints included complete closure rate, delayed bleeding (DB) rate, and sustained closure rate. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for the sustained closure.

RESULTS

All 49 (100%) defects (42 ESD defects and 7 ESD-ME defects) were completely closed through the strategy of EHS-Clips, with 35 (71.4%) through EHS alone and 14 (28.6%) through EHS and additional clips. No patients experienced DB. Thirty-six (73.5%) defects remained sustained closure on postoperative days 3 to 5 (73.8% for ESD defects vs 71.4% for ESD-ME defects). The multivariate analyses identified a stitch margin of ≥5 mm (hazard ratio, 0.313; 95% confidence interval, 0.023-0.781; P = .009) as the only independent advantage factor for the sustained closure.

CONCLUSIONS

EHS-Clips can be used to effectively close the rectal defects after ESD or ESD-ME and prevent DB. Complete suture with a stitch margin of ≥5 mm may achieve more reliable sustained closure.

Efficacy and Safety of Thermal Ablation after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Large colonic polyps during colonoscopy can be managed by Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). To decrease the polyp recurrence rate, thermal ablation methods like argon plasma coagulation (APC) and snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) have been introduced. We performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these modalities. (2) Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review, through 5 January 2024, of databases including Embase, PubMed, SciELO, KCI, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. Using a random effects model, we conducted a frequentist approach network meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Safety and efficacy endpoints including rates of recurrence, bleeding, perforation, and post polypectomy syndrome were compared. (3) Results: Our search yielded a total of 13 studies with 2686 patients. Compared to placebo, both APC (RR: 0.33 CI: 0.20-0.54, p < 0.01) and STSC (RR: 0.27, CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.01) showed decreased recurrence rates. On ranking, STSC showed the lowest recurrence rate, followed by APC and placebo. Regarding individual adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between either of the thermal ablation methods and placebo. (4) Conclusions: We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation after EMR for decreasing recurrence of adenoma.

Curative Effect Analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Giant Laterally Spreading Rectal Tumors

GOAL

The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of giant lateral developing rectal-type tumors (laterally spreading tumors, LSTs).

BACKGROUND

There are no specialized studies on the efficacy of ESD in the treatment of LSTs measuring >5 cm in diameter, surgery was often used in the past, but it has the disadvantages of large trauma, many complications, and high cost.

METHODS

The data of 185 patients with rectal LSTs who had undergone ESD in the digestive endoscopy center of our hospital from January 2012 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the size of the lesions, the patients were divided into 2 groups: diameter ≤5 cm (110 cases) and diameter >5 cm (75 cases), and we summarized and analyzed the en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, procedure time, muscle injury, bleeding, perforation, postoperative stricture, and recurrence.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate between the 2 groups ( P =0.531). Moreover, there was no difference in the incidence of delayed perforation, postoperative stenosis, and recurrence, but the incidence of delayed bleeding was significantly higher in the giant LST group than the small LST group ( P =0.001). Moreover, for giant rectal LSTs, the growth pattern of the lesion, JNET classification, and the extent of postoperative mucosal defect do not significantly affect the efficacy of ESD. It is worth mentioning that the operation time was longer in the group with a diameter >5 cm, in which perforation was more frequent and the muscle layer was more likely to be injured during ESD ( P <0.001). The muscle injury during ESD was mainly related to the diameter of the lesion, the crossing the rectal pouch, and the operation time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ESD to treat giant rectal LSTs (>5 cm) is relatively difficult and can easily lead to intraoperative muscle injury, perforation, and late postoperative bleeding. However, if active intervention is performed, patients can still achieve good efficacy and prognosis, which can be applied in hospitals with certain conditions.

Does Prophylactic Closure Improve Outcomes After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have described prophylactic closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions for improving postoperative outcomes. We reviewed the evidence on the impact of prophylactic closure after ESD.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science by 2 reviewers independently for studies published up to July 9, 2023. All types of comparative studies were eligible.

RESULTS

Ten studies compared 939 patients undergoing prophylactic closure with 1074 controls. Three were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while the rest were observational. Pooled data from all included studies showed that prophylactic closure resulted in reduced incidence of delayed bleeding after ESD [odds ratio (OR): 0.30; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.72; I2 =0%]. These results were significant only for observational studies but not for RCTs. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of delayed perforation (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.70; I2 =0%) or post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.41, 3.19; I2 =63%) between closure and nonclosure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data suggest that prophylactic closure of colorectal mucosal defects after ESD may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding. However, the results are not concurred by RCTs. Furthermore, there seems to be no impact of prophylactic closure on the risk of delayed perforation and PECS.

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

East versus West: Comparisons and Implications in Adaptation to Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred strategy for the resection of large superficial neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract in Asian countries. The transition of ESD to the West has been slower because of various regional and training differences. Nonetheless, over the past couple of decades, the steady growth of ESD mentors in the West and the introduction of viable training pathways and dedicated devices and accessories have led to the increasing adoption of ESD and other third space endoscopic procedures.

Image-enhanced endoscopy and endoscopic resection practices in the colon among endoscopists in India

Background and study aims  Clinical practice patterns for image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) and colonic endoscopic resection practices vary among endoscopists. We conducted a survey to understand the differences in IEE and colonoscopic resection practices among endoscopists from India. Methods  An online cross-sectional survey comprising 40 questions regarding quality control of colonoscopy, IEE, and colonic endoscopic resection practices was circulated through the registry of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Colon and Rectal Surgeons of India. Participation was voluntary and response to all questions was compulsory. Results  There were 205 respondents to the survey (93.2 % gastroenterologists, 90.2 % male, 54.6 % aged 30 to 40 years, 36.1 % working in academic institution, 36.1 % working in corporate hospitals). Of the endoscopists, 50.7 % had no training in IEE and 10.7 % performed endoscopy on systems without any IEE modalities. Endoscopists with more experience were more likely to use IEE modalities in practice routinely ( P  = 0.007). Twenty percent never used IEE to classify polyps. Sixty percent of respondents did not use dye-chromoendoscopy. Less experienced endoscopists used viscous solutions as submucosal injectate ( P  = 0.036) more often. Of the respondents, 44 % never tattooed the site of endoscopic resection. Ablation of edges post-endoscopic mucosal resection was not done by 25.5 % respondents. Most respondents used electronic chromoendoscopy (36.1 %) or random four-quadrant sampling (35.6 %) for surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Surveillance post-endoscopic resection was done arbitrarily by 24 % respondents at 6 months to 1 year. Conclusions  There are several lacunae in the practice of IEE and colonic endoscopic resection among endoscopists, with need for programs for privileging, credentialing and proctoring these endoscopic skills.

Polypectomy, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Cirrhotic Population

Endoscopic mucosal resection and dissection are advanced endoscopic procedures that have proven essential for resecting premalignant and early malignant lesions throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Over time, these procedures have proven to play a key role in avoiding more invasive surgical approaches and thus decrease overall mortality. However, the success of these procedures does come with a slightly increased risk of adverse events such as bleeding and perforation. In this article, we review the literature for reported adverse events, specifically in the cirrhotic population. This article also discusses experts' opinions on approaches taken to perform these procedures with acceptable risks.