A New Ex Vivo Model for the Evaluation of Endoscopic Submucosal Injection Material Performance

Comparison of sodium alginate-based and sodium hyaluronate-based submucosal injection materials based on rheological analysis

As a viscous high-performance submucosal injection material (SIM) used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), sodium alginate-based SIM (SA-SIM) was recently introduced as high-performance SIM equivalent to sodium hyaluronate-based SIM (HA-SIM) in Japan. However, a comprehensive, detailed comparison of SA and HA is yet to be performed. In this study, we precisely measured the viscoelastic properties, submucosal elevation height (SEH), and injection pressure (IP). Furthermore, we compared the outcomes of ESD using an ex vivo ESD model. There was no significant difference in SEHs between HA-SIM and SA-SIM at all post-injection times, and the IP of the SA-SIM injection was significantly higher than that of the HA-SIM injection in all conditions (P < 0.0001). The viscosity at high shear rates of SA-SIM was higher than that of HA-SIM; this result was consistent with SEH/IP measurement results. No significant difference was observed in ESD procedure time and total volume of injected SIM between HA-SIM and SA-SIM (18.1 ± 6.7 and 17.8 ± 6.0 min, P = 0.8987; 13.3 ± 5.3 and 11.6 ± 5.9 ml, P = 0.4658, respectively). Although SA-SIM was slightly more difficult to inject than HA-SIM, there was no significant difference in performance between the materials. Thus, this basic study demonstrated that SA-SIM can be used for endoscopic treatment as well as HA-SIM, and supported previous clinical research data.

Differences between two sodium hyaluronate-based submucosal injection materials currently used in Japan based on viscosity analysis

In Japan, two 0.4% sodium hyaluronate (HA)-based submucosal injection materials (SIMs) are currently used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): MucoUp (HA-Mc) and Ksmart (HA-Ks). HA-Mc and HA-Ks have the same concentration and are, thus, construed by most endoscopists to have no difference. Nevertheless, visual observation conveys the impression that HA-Ks have a higher viscosity than HA-Mc, suggesting that HA-Ks performs better than HA-Mc. This study aimed to examine the differences between HA-Mc and HA-Ks. HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity due to greater weight-average molecular weight compared with HA-Mc. HA-Ks had significantly greater submucosal elevation height (SEH) than HA-Mc; the SEH of HA-Ks-80% (80% dilution of HA-Ks) was the same as that of HA-Mc. The ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with HA-Ks than with HA-Mc (15.2 ± 4.1 vs. 19.5 ± 5.9; P = 0.049). The total injection volume for HA-Ks was significantly lower than that for HA-Mc (10.8 ± 3.6 vs. 14.4 ± 4.6; P = 0.045). However, no significant difference in these items was observed between HA-Mc and HA-Ks-80%. HA-Mc and HA-Ks were considered to be almost the same. Nonetheless, HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity and SIM performance than HA-Mc. HA-Ks-80% had almost the same performance as HA-Mc. Thus, understanding SIM performance and characteristics requires a focus on the viscosity of SIMs.