Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

Training program using a traction device improves trainees' learning curve of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires advanced endoscopic skill. For safer and more reliable ESD implementation, various traction devices have been developed in recent years. The purpose of this research was to evaluate whether an ESD training program using a traction device (TD) would contribute to the improvement of trainees' skill acquisition.

METHODS

The differences in treatment outcomes and learning curves by the training program were compared before and after the introduction of TD (control group: January 2014 to March 2016; TD group: April 2016 to June 2018).

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients were included in the analysis (TD group: 202 cases; control group: 114 cases). The number of cases required to achieve proficiency in ESD techniques was 10 in the TD group and 21 in the control group. Compared to the control group, the TD group had a significant advantage in ESD self-completion rate (73.8% vs. 58.8%), dissection speed (19.5 mm²/min vs. 15.9 mm²/min), en bloc resection rate (100% vs. 90%), and R0 resection rate (96% vs. 83%).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of colorectal ESD self-completion by trainees improved immediately after the start of the training program using a traction device compared to the conventional method, and the dissection speed tended to increase linearly with ESD experience. We believe that ESD training using a traction device will help ESD techniques to be performed safely and reliably among trainees.

The usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method with a traction device using a scissor-type knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

INTRODUCTION

Technical issues and long procedure time still remain a concern in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (S-O clip; SO) using a scissor-type knife (Clutch Cutter 3.5 mm; CC) for decreasing ESD procedure time.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 95 ESD cases of PCM + SO + CC managed from August 2017 to April 2020 and 103 cases of PCM + CC treated from July 2016 to July 2017. We compared these two groups through propensity score matching. The main outcome was the analysis of the ESD procedure times under various conditions in each group.

RESULTS

After matching, 52 cases in the PCM + SO + CC and PCM + CC groups were analyzed. The PCM + SO + CC group showed a significantly shorter ESD procedure time than the PCM + CC group (57.8 ± 31.4 vs. 81.7 ± 33.5 min, p < 0.01). Additionally, the ESD procedure time was significantly shorter in the PCM + SO + CC group than in the PCM + CC group: tumor size (tumor size < 40 mm: 45.6 ± 15.8 vs. 72.7 ± 22.9 min, p < 0.01; tumor size ≥ 40 mm: 83.1 ± 40.1 vs. 111.8 ± 45.3 min, p = 0.04), tumor location (right side: 64.7 ± 33.3 vs. 81.0 ± 29.7 min, p = 0.03; left side: 50.5 ± 28.0 vs. 82.3 ± 36.9 min, p < 0.01), tumor morphology (polypoid: 39.2 ± 18.6 vs. 74.7 ± 28.6 min, p < 0.01; nonpolypoid: 62.3 ± 32.3 vs. 84.5 ± 35.2 min, p < 0.01), endoscopist (expert: 67.3 ± 41.2 vs. 91.9 ± 40.2 min, p = 0.02; nonexpert: 50.4 ± 18.3 vs. 73.6 ± 24.9 min, p < 0.01), and fibrosis (severe fibrosis: 82.0 ± 20.5 vs. 99.8 ± 40.4 min, p = 0.169; non-severe fibrosis: 52.1 ± 23.8 vs. 75.6 ± 29.0 min, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of the PCM and SO using CC achieved a reduction in the colorectal ESD procedure time.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

A task and performance analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery

BACKGROUND

ESD is an endoscopic technique for en bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a widely-used in Japan and throughout Asia, but not as prevalent in Europe or the US. The procedure is technically challenging and has higher adverse events (bleeding, perforation) compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Inadequate training platforms and lack of established training curricula have restricted its wide acceptance in the US. Thus, we aim to develop a Virtual Endoluminal Surgery Simulator (VESS) for objective ESD training and assessment. In this work, we performed task and performance analysis of ESD surgeries.

METHODS

We performed a detailed colorectal ESD task analysis and identified the critical ESD steps for lesion identification, marking, injection, circumferential cutting, dissection, intraprocedural complication management, and post-procedure examination. We constructed a hierarchical task tree that elaborates the order of tasks in these steps. Furthermore, we developed quantitative ESD performance metrics. We measured task times and scores of 16 ESD surgeries performed by four different endoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

The average time of the marking, injection, and circumferential cutting phases are 203.4 (σ: 205.46), 83.5 (σ: 49.92), 908.4 s. (σ: 584.53), respectively. Cutting the submucosal layer takes most of the time of overall ESD procedure time with an average of 1394.7 s (σ: 908.43). We also performed correlation analysis (Pearson's test) among the performance scores of the tasks. There is a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.528, p = 0.0355) between marking scores and total scores, a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7879, p = 0.0003) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and total scores. Similarly, we noted a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7095, p = 0.0021) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and marking scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We elaborated ESD tasks and developed quantitative performance metrics used in analysis of actual surgery performance. These ESD metrics will be used in future validation studies of our VESS simulator.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane for studies reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety profile of colorectal ESD. Results: Included in this study were 13833 tumors in 13603 patients (42 % female) who underwent colorectal ESD between 1998 and 2014. The R0 resection rate was 83 % (95 % CI, 80 - 86 %) with significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.001) which was partly explained by difference in continent (P = 0.004), study design (P = 0.04), duration of the procedure (P = 0.009), and, marginally, by average tumor size (P = 0.09). Endoscopic en bloc and curative resection rates were 92 % (95 % CI, 90 - 94 %) and 86 % (95 % CI, 80 - 90 %), respectively. The rates of immediate and delayed perforation were 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.5 - 5.0 %) and 0.22 % (95 % CI, 0.11 - 0.46 %), respectively, while rates of immediate and delayed major bleeding were 0.75 % (95 % CI, 0.31 - 1.8 %) and 2.1 % (95 % CI, 1.6 - 2.6 %). After an average postoperative follow up of 19 months, the rate of tumor recurrence was 0.04 % (95 % CI, 0.01 - 0.31) among those with R0 resection and 3.6 % (95 % CI, 1.4 - 8.8 %) among those without R0 resection. Overall, irrespective of the resection status, recurrence rate was 1.0 % (95 % CI, 0.42 - 2.1 %). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of colorectal ESD to date, showed that colorectal ESD is safe and effective for colorectal tumors and warrants consideration as first-line therapy when an expert operator is available.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection from a Western perspective: Today’s promises and future challenges

Over the last few years, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in the management of early colorectal neoplasms, particularly in Asian countries where the technique was born. In the Western world, its implementation has been slow and laborious. In this paper, the indications for ESD, its learning model, the available methods to predict the presence of deep submucosal invasion before the procedure and the published outcomes from Asia and Europe will be reviewed. Since ESD has several limitations in terms of learning achievement in the West, and completion of the procedure for the first cases is difficult in our part of the world, a short review on colorectal assisted ESD has been included. Finally, other endoscopic and surgical treatment modalities that are in competition with colorectal ESD will be summarized.