Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in special locations

The role of advanced endoscopy in appendiceal polyp management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal orifice lesions are often managed operatively with limited or oncologic resections. The aim is to report the management of appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms using advanced endoscopic interventions.

METHODS

Patients with appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms who underwent advanced endoscopic resections between 2011 and 2021 with either endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD), hybrid ESD, or combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery (CELS) were included from a prospectively collected dataset. Patient and lesion details and procedure outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Out of 1005 lesions resected with advanced endoscopic techniques, 41 patients (4%) underwent appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasm resection, including 39% by hybrid ESD, 34% by ESD, 15% by EMR, and 12% by CELS. The median age was 65, and 54% were male. The median lesion size was 20 mm. The dissection was completed piecemeal in 49% of patients. Post-procedure, one patient had a complication within 30 days and was admitted with post-polypectomy abdominal pain treated with observation for 2 days with no intervention. Pathology revealed 49% sessile-serrated lesions, 24% tubular adenomas, and 15% tubulovillous adenomas. Patients were followed up for a median of 8 (0-48) months. One patient with a sessile-serrated lesion experienced a recurrence after EMR which was re-resected with EMR.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic interventions for appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms can be performed with a low rate of complications and early recurrence. While conventionally lesions at the appendiceal orifice are often treated with surgical resection, advanced endoscopic interventions are an alternative approach with promising results which allow for cecal preservation.

Device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in colorectum: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as an effective modality for mucosal and submucosal lesions in the colorectum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the success and safety of device-assisted EFTR in the colon and rectum.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies evaluating device-assisted EFTR between inception to October 2022. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (R0 resection) with EFTR. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In all, 29 studies with 3467 patients (59% male patients, 3492 lesions) were included in the analysis. The lesions were located in right colon (47.5%), left colon (28.6%), and rectum (24.3%). EFTR was performed for subepithelial lesions in 7.2% patients. The pooled mean size of the lesions was 16.6 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9-18.2, I2 98%). Technical success was achieved in 87.1% (95% CI 85.1-88.9%, I2 39%) procedures. The pooled rate of en bloc resection was 88.1% (95% CI 86-90%, I2 47%) and R0 resection was 81.8% (95% CI 79-84.3%, I2 56%). In subepithelial lesions, the pooled rate of R0 resection was 94.3% (95% CI 89.7-96.9%, I2 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events was 11.9% (95% CI 10.2-13.9%, I2 43%) and major adverse events requiring surgery was 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%, I2 0%).

CONCLUSION

Device-assisted EFTR is a safe and effective treatment modality in cases with adenomatous and subepithelial colorectal lesions. Comparative studies are required with conventional resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Performance of a Novel Hybrid-Technology Knife in an Animal Trial

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed for the removal of benign and early malignant lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. We aimed to evaluate the performance and safety of a novel high-pressure waterjet-assisted ESD knife in colorectal applications. Six female German Landrace pigs with an average weight of 62 kg (range 60-65 kg) were used in this prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Twenty-four ESDs were performed by three endoscopists: Twelve each with the new Erbe HYBRIDknife® flex T-Type (HK-T) and the Olympus DualKnife® J (DK-J), including six rectal and six colonic ESDs per instrument. The order of performance was randomized regarding anatomic position and instrument. As the primary endpoint, ESD knife performance characteristics were combined and rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 Likert points (LP) representing the best response (5 = very good). The HK-T was rated significantly better than the DK-J (4.7 LP versus 4.4 LP, p = 0.0295), mainly because of HK-T injection ability (5 LP versus 3 LP, p < 0.0001) and hemostasis (5 LP versus 4 LP, p = 0.0452). There was no difference in procedure time (HK-T: 35 min versus DK-J: 34 min, p = 0.8005), resection diameter (3.1 cm versus 2.8 cm, p = 0.3492), injection volume (41 mL versus 46 mL, p = 0.5633), and complication rates. HK-T is as effective as DK-J in colorectal ESD in terms of dissection quality but has better injection and hemostatic properties. The impact of these technical advantages on the ESD treatment of patients with large superficial colorectal lesions remains to be clinically verified.