Efficacy and safety of modified endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal circumferential lesions

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-tunnel dissection using hemostatic forceps and needle-type device for patients with esophageal circumferential lesions (ECLs). Patients with ECLs were enrolled in the study and underwent endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) or hemostatic forceps-based ESTD (ESFTD). All patients were divided into three subgroups according to longitudinal length of the lesions (LLLs): >8 cm, 4-8 cm and < 4 cm. The clinical data such as gender, age, length of lesions and operating time were collected. A total of 152 patients were included in this study and comprised 80 cases of ESFTD and 72 cases of ESTD. The procedure time was markedly shorter in the ESFTD group than in the ESTD group (P < 0.001). Moreover, ESFTD significantly increased the rate of complete resection and reduced specimen injury in LLLs >8 cm and 4-8 cm subgroup compared with ESTD (P < 0.001), but not in <4 cm subgroup (P > 0.05). The perforation and infection rate were similar in ESFTD and ESTD group (P > 0.05). However, ESFTD effectively decreased the muscular injury rate' the duration of chest pain and the time from endoscopic surgery to first occurrence of esophageal stenosis compared with ESTD group (P < 0.01). ESFTD has better efficacy and safety than ESTD in the treatment of ECLs, especially for large lesions. ESFTD could be recommended for patients with ECLs.

Risk Factors for Fever After Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Its Derived Technique

Background

Fever is one of the postoperative adverse events of endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique, but the probability and risk factors of postoperative fever are still unclear. The aim of the current study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of postoperative fever after esophageal lesion removal.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of 446 patients who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique between January 2014 and January 2020. Cases included in this study were divided into fever and non-fever groups.

Results

Postoperative fever developed in 135 patients (30.3%). The median (range) highest fever temperature was 38 (37.8–38.4)°C, the median (range) duration of fever was 1 (1–2) day, and 127 (94.1%) patients developed fever within 24 h after operation. Through logistic regression analysis, factors associated with postoperative fever were age (OR: 1.740, 95% CI: 1.005–3.013, p = 0.048), lesion size (OR: 2.007, 95% CI: 1.198–3.362, p = 0.008), operation time (OR: 3.007, 95% CI: 1.756–5.147, p < 0.001) and nasogastric tube placement (OR: 1.881, 95% CI: 1.165–3.037, p = 0.010), while prophylactic antibiotics (OR: 0.181, 95% CI: 0.082–0.401, p < 0.001) were negatively associated with fever.

Conclusions

Age ≥52 years old, lesion size ≥19 mm, operation time ≥37 min, and nasogastric tube placement are risk factors for postoperative fever after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derived technique, prophylactic antibiotic use after operation may help reduce fever rate. Attention should be paid to such patients to minimize the risk of postoperative fever.

Endoscopic Submucosal Tunnel Dissection as a Novel Therapeutic Technique in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus

With the ameliorated resectability prowess of endoscopic techniques, a myriad of diseases previously treated by major ablative surgeries are now endoscopically curable. Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is a relatively new technique that has diversified endoscopic application. Although ESTD has frequently been used for the resection of esophageal neoplastic lesions, the clinical evidence pertaining to its efficacy in the treatment of circumferential Barrett’s esophagus remains sparse. In this study, we evaluated ESTD as a potential therapeutic technique in patients with Barrett’s esophagus-related high-grade dysplasia. The tunneling strategy helped achieve complete en bloc resection at an increased dissection speed, without any procedural complications. This article illustrates that ESTD can be a feasible, safe, and effective treatment for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Future research should aim to stratify the potential risks and complications associated with this optimization of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with superficial esophageal lesions.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is a new treatment for superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors. However, its safety and efficacy for treating these lesions is still uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESTD with those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and the Web of Science, were systematically searched for articles published up to 1 April 2020. The primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates of the lesions. The secondary outcomes included operation time, speed of dissection, complication and recurrence rates. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The complete and en bloc resection rates of early superficial esophageal lesions as well as the en bloc resection rate of early superficial gastric lesions were similar between the ESTD and ESD groups. Compared with the ESD group, the ESTD group had a higher en bloc resection rate for early superficial gastric lesions. A faster dissection speed was observed in both superficial esophageal and gastric lesions. In gastric lesions, the operation time of the ESTD group was shorter than that of the ESD group, while it did not differ for esophageal lesions. There were no obvious differences in bleeding and perforation rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

As an endoscopic technique for treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal lesions, ESTD is as safe as and more effective than ESD, especially for gastric lesions.

Comparison between tunneling and standard endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of large esophageal superficial neoplasm

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been established as a standard endoscopic method for treating esophageal superficial neoplasms, and it can be performed using a conventional or a tunneling method. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of tunneling ESD (t-ESD) and standard ESD (s-ESD) for treating large esophageal superficial neoplasms and to explore the risk factors for postoperative strictures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive patients with large esophageal superficial neoplasms were treated by t-ESD or s-ESD. Demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure-related parameters, and follow-up results were retrospectively collected to compare the efficacy and safety of these procedures. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the potential risk factors for postoperative strictures.

RESULTS

Of the 55 patients, 13 underwent t-ESD and 42 underwent s-ESD. The dissection speed of t-ESD was significantly faster than that of s-ESD (7.42±1.99 min/cm2 vs. 9.01±2.11 min/cm2, P<0.05). En bloc resection was achieved in 98.2% (54/55) of the cases, while R0 resection was achieved in 92.7% (51/55). Curative resection was achieved in 78.2% (43/55) of the cases. Fourteen patients (25.5%) had postoperative strictures, which resolved with endoscopic dilation and/or stent insertion. Circumferential involvement of >3/4 and lesion length of >3 cm were independent risk factors for strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

T-ESD is a safe and effective method for treating large esophageal superficial neoplasms with a faster dissection speed than s-ESD, but postoperative strictures may be encountered for lesions involving more than three-fourths of the circumference or longer than 3 cm.

Endoscopic resection of gastric submucosal tumors: A comparison of endoscopic nontunneling with tunneling resection and a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic tunneling resection is a relatively novel endoscopic technology for removing gastric submucosal tumors. Our study aimed to compare the differences between tunneling and nontunneling resection for gastric submucosal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Resections of gastric submucosal tumors (n = 97) performed from 2010 to 2015 at our endoscopy center were reviewed, and PubMed was searched for clinical studies on gastric submucosal tumor resection by endoscopic nontunneling and tunneling techniques.

RESULTS

At our endoscopy center, nontunneling (Group 1) and tunneling resection (Group 2) were performed for 78 and 19 submucosal tumors, respectively; median tumor diameters were 15 and 20 mm (P = 0.086), median procedural times were 50 and 75 min (P = 0.017), successful resection rates were 94.9% (74/78) and 89.5% (17/19) (P = 0.334), and en bloc resection rates were 95.9% (71/74) and 94.1% (16/17) (P = 0.569) in the Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Postoperative fever, delayed hemorrhage and perforation, hospitalization time, and hospitalization expense were statistically similar between the 2 groups. A literature review on gastric submucosal tumor resection suggested that the en bloc resection rates of the two methods for tumors with a median diameter of 15-30 mm were also high, and there were no relapses during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic nontunneling and tunneling resection seem to be effective and safe methods for removing relatively small gastric submucosal tumors. Compared with endoscopic nontunneling, tunneling resection does not seem to have distinct advantages for gastric submucosal tumors, and has a longer mean operative time.