The feasibility of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors

The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in different size groups. This retrospective study included 2699 patients with LSTs who underwent endoscopic treatment at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from May 2012 to February 2022. The patient baseline and procedure outcomes were compared between the < 5 cm group, 5-10 cm group, and ≥ 10 cm group. Meanwhile, lesions larger than 5 cm in diameter were longitudinally compared for endoscopic safety using ESD with surgical operation outcomes. There were 2105 patients in the < 5 cm group, 547 patients in the 5-10 cm group, and 47 patients in the ≥ 10 cm group. En bloc resection and R0 resection rates, the incidence of adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and medical costs significantly differed between the groups (P < 0.01). Comorbidity of diabetes or hypertension, history of antithrombotic drug use, lesion size, location, gross type, endoscopic procedures selection, and circumferential extent of the mucosal defect were independent risk factors for delayed bleeding (P < 0.05). En bloc resection, R0 resection, and lesion canceration were associated with local recurrence. For lesions larger than 5 cm in diameter, ESD had similar R0 resection and local recurrence rates compared with a surgical operation but a lower en bloc rate, LOS, and medical costs. Expert endoscopists can significantly increase en bloc and R0 resection rates and reduce the incidence of adverse events. Endoscopic resection results distinguish in different size groups of colorectal LSTs, yet its safety and feasibility are not inferior to a surgical operation.

Underwater cap-suction pseudopolyp formation for endoscopic mucosal resection: a simple technique for treating flat, appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection.

RESULTS

We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

Continuous suture technique increases the complete closure rate of colorectal mucosal defects after endoscopic resection: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Complete closure of mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) procedures reduces postoperative adverse events, but the complete closure rate of the traditional method using only hemostatic clips is not satisfactory. Therefore, we invented a continuous suture technique using a barbed suture and clips to increase the complete closure rate of colorectal mucosal defects.

METHODS

Patients with a single large (≥ 2 cm) colorectal lesion were recruited. After completion of the ESD/p-EMR procedures, they were randomly allocated to the treatment group or control group. The mucosal defects of the treatment group were closed using barbed suture and clips, while the control group was closed using only clips.

RESULTS

From January 18, 2022 to April 13, 2022, a total of 62 patients with colorectal lesions were enrolled, with 31 patients in each group. Complete closure was achieved in 29 patients (93.5%) in the treatment group and 18 patients (58.1%) in the control group (P = 0.001). The median closure time was 13 min in the treatment group and 19 min in the control group (P < 0.001). The median closure speed was 6.4 cm2/10 min in the treatment group and 3.5 cm2/10 min in the control group (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided a clinically feasible continuous suture technique that was safe and effective for the complete closure of colorectal mucosal defects after endoscopic resection.

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early-stage gastrointestinal neoplasms are frequently treated with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR). However, C-EMR frequently leads to incomplete resection of large colorectal lesions. Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which was recently introduced for en bloc resection of colorectal neoplasms, minimizes slippage during the procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared Tip-in EMR with conventional EMR. We searched several electronic databases and included studies that reported on the primary outcomes of en bloc resection rate and complete resection rate, as well as secondary outcomes such as procedure time and procedure-related complications (including perforation and delayed bleeding rate). We used a random effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. We also conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in C-EMR group) were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional EMR, Tip-in EMR significantly increased the en bloc resection rate in patients with colorectal neoplasia (OR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.09-6.23; P <0.00001; I2 =0%) and had a higher complete resection rate (OR=2.49; 95% CI, 1.65-3.76; P <0.0001; I2 =0%). However, the procedure time and rates of procedure-related complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR outperformed C-EMR for both the en bloc and complete resection of colorectal lesions with similar rates of procedural complications.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection as a salvage technique for challenging colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With an external additional working channel (AWC) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as well as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be extended to techniques termed "EMR+" and "ESD+." These novel techniques are systematically compared to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope (DC).

METHODS

Our trial was conducted prospectively in a pre-clinical porcine animal model (EASIE-R simulator) with standardized gastric lesions measuring 3 or 4 cm.

RESULTS

EMR+ and EMR DC showed both good results for 3 cm lesions with no adverse events and an en bloc resection rate of 73.33% (EMR+) and 60.00% (EMR DC, p = 0.70). They came to their limits in 4 cm lesions with muscularis damages of 20.00% (EMR+), 13.33% (EMR DC, p ≥ 0.99) and decreasing en bloc resection rates of 60.00% (EMR+) and 46.67% (EMR DC, p = 0.72). ESD+ and ESD DC were both reliable concerning en bloc resection rates (100% in all groups) and adverse events (0.00% in 3 cm lesions, 12.50% muscularis damages in both ESD+ and ESD DC in 4 cm lesions). Resection time was slightly shorter in all groups with the AWC compared to DC although only reaching significance in 3 cm ESD lesions (p < 0.05*).

CONCLUSIONS

With the AWC, a standard endoscope can easily be transformed to double-channel functionality. We could show that EMR+ and ESD+ are non-inferior to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope. Consequently, the AWC presents an affordable alternative to a double-channel endoscope for both EMR and ESD.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for giant rectal tumors larger than 8 cm: A European referral center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To date, western data on colorectal ESD are limited. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal ESD for superficial lesions ≥ 8 cm.

METHODS

A total of 138 superficial rectal neoplasms treated by ESD were allocated in two groups: 25 in the "giant" ESD group and 113 in the control group.

RESULTS

En bloc resection was achieved in 96% of cases in both groups. En bloc R0 resection rate was similar between the "giant" ESD group and the control group (84% vs 86%; p: 0.5) and curative resection was higher in the control group (81%) than in "giant" ESD group (68%) without reaching statistical significance (p: 0.2). Dissection time was significantly longer in the "giant" ESD group (251 vs 108 min; p <0.001), however, dissection speed was significantly higher (0.35 vs 0.17 cm2/min; p: 0.02).). Post-ESD stenosis was observed in 2 patients from the "giant" ESD group (8% vs 0% of control group, p: 0.03). No significant differences were found in delayed bleeding, perforation, local recurrences, and need for additional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for superficial rectal tumors ≥ 8 cm is a feasible, safe, and effective therapeutic option.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from 2012 until November 20, 2021: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events (delayed bleeding and delayed perforation), and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 679 lesions (331 underwent UEMR and 348 CEMR) were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that UMER achieves a similar en bloc resection rate (87.6 vs. 89.9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 3.73; P =0.64; I2 =74%), a similar R0 resection rate (67.3 vs. 73.6%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.23; P =0.78; I2 =59%), a shorter procedure time (min) (mean difference [MD], -4.05, 95% CI: -6.40 to -1.71; P =0.0007; I2 =70%) compared with CEMR. There were no significant differences in the rates of delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and recurrence (2.4 vs. 1.7%, 0 vs. 0.6%, 2.2 vs. 4.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to CEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Factors associated with increased duration of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumors: a 22-year retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used in several countries. However, it is associated with technical difficulties. Rectal ESD is considered an intermediate step in colorectal ESD training. Nevertheless, some rectal lesions require a longer procedure time than usual, and the reason for the prolonged time taken for these specific lesions remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the factors associated with prolonged rectal ESD.

METHODS

In total, 483 rectal lesions resected using ESD from February 1998 to June 2021 were investigated. Prolonged ESD procedure time was defined as the time from the first submucosal injection to lesion removal exceeding 120 minutes, whereas other procedures were defined as average ESD procedure time. Clinicopathologic and endoscopic findings were compared between the 2 groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four lesions were resected using a prolonged ESD procedure time of 202.9 ± 92.3 minutes, whereas 339 lesions were resected using an average ESD procedure time of 77.8 ± 29.4 minutes. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumors involving the dentate line (P = .026), resection size ≥50 mm (P < .001), invasion depth ≥T1b (P = .006), and circumferential range ≥2/3 (P = .001) were independent risk factors for prolonged-duration ESDs, regardless of whether the procedure was performed by an expert or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that the location of a lesion involving the dentate line, resection size ≥50 mm, circumferential range ≥2/3, and invasion depth ≥T1b are the independent risk factors for prolonged ESD procedure time.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.

Is colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection safe and effective for 15-19-mm tumors?

PURPOSE

The outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 15-19-mm tumors are unclear. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of colorectal ESD for 15-19-mm tumors and tumors exceeding that size.

METHODS

From August 2018 to December 2020, 213 cases of colorectal tumors removed by colorectal ESD at a tertiary hospital were enrolled in this study. The cases were divided into two groups according to the pathologically measured size of the resected lesion: an intermediate group (15-19 mm, n = 62) and a large group (≥ 20 mm, n = 151). The en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the intermediate than large group (100% vs. 94%, p = 0.049), and the mean total procedure time was shorter in the intermediate than large group (29.2 [Formula: see text] 12.6 vs. 48.4 [Formula: see text] 28.8 min, p < 0.001). However, the mean procedure speed was significantly lower in the intermediate than large group (0.25 [Formula: see text] 0.10 vs. 0.28 [Formula: see text] 0.11 cm2/min, p = 0.031). The complete resection rate, post-procedural bleeding, and perforation rate were not significantly different between the two groups. In multivariate analyses, the total procedure time and mean procedure speed were significantly associated with lesion size.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal ESD of 15-19-mm lesions is effective, and has a shorter procedure time and higher en bloc resection rate than the same procedure for larger lesions.

A case report of heterotopic gastric mucosa in the rectum treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection and a systematic review

RATIONALE

Heterotopic gastric mucosa (HGM) can occur in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract, but rectal is very rare. In recent years, rectal HGM is more often treated by endoscopic resection (ER).

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 28-year-old female was admitted to the hospital with the chief complaint of "a rectal lesion found on physical examination".

DIAGNOSES

Heterotopic gastric mucosa (HGM).

INTERVENTIONS

An endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed to completely dissect the lesion.

OUTCOMES

The patient recovered well at 1 month of follow-up and did not suffer from further blood in the stool.

LESSONS

Rectal HGM has acid secretion function and HP can be colonized, causing a variety of symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloody stool, and anal pain and has the potential risk of malignant transformation; resection is the best treatment method, and ESD has its unique advantages and can be promoted in the clinic.

A novel through-the-scope helix tack-and-suture device for mucosal defect closure following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Complete closure of large mucosal defects following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with through-the-scope (TTS) clips is oftentimes not possible. We aimed to report our early experience of using a novel TTS suturing system for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent attempted prophylactic defect closure using the TTS suturing system after colorectal ESD. The primary outcome was technical success in achieving complete defect closure, defined as a < 5 mm residual mucosal defect in the closure line using TTS suturing, with or without adjuvant TTS clips.

RESULTS

82 patients with a median defect size of 30 (interquartile range 25-40) mm were included. Technical success was achieved in 92.7 % (n = 76): TTS suturing only in 44 patients (53.7 %) and a combination of TTS suturing to approximate the widest segment followed by complete closure with TTS clips in 32 (39.0 %). Incomplete/partial closure, failure of appropriate TTS suture deployment, and the need for over-the-scope salvage closure methods were observed in 7.3 % (n = 6). One intraprocedural bleed, one delayed bleed, and three intraprocedural perforations were observed. There were no adverse events related to placement of the TTS suture.

CONCLUSION

The TTS suture system is an effective and safe tool for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD and is an alternative when complete closure with TTS clips alone is not possible.

Novel closure method for a large mucosal defect after endoscopic resection: String clip suturing method with an anchor

Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a high-risk technique; however, prophylactic closure of mucosal defects reduces the risk. Unfortunately, we have encountered cases where closure is difficult, especially in large lesions. Therefore, we developed a novel closure technique, a string clip suturing method with an anchor (SCSM-A). This study aimed to elucidate the feasibility of this method. Five patients underwent this method for the closure of mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. The initial string clip was deployed at the anal end of the mucosal defects and the second clip was deployed at the other end of the mucosal defect. A third clip was deployed on the muscular layer in the middle of the mucosal defect. The free end of the string was pulled, and additional clips were deployed around the first to the third clips for complete closure. Because of grasping the muscle layer, SCSM-A can be employed for secure closure without creating a pocket. We reviewed the background and clinical course of hospitalization of patients who underwent this method. The resected specimens ranged from 52 to 103 mm in diameter. Complete closure of the mucosal defects was possible in all the cases. There were no adverse events, and no cases required additional treatment. All the patients were discharged within 7 days. The new method achieved secure closure even for large mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. This is a technique that can be applied to other organs, e.g., the colon.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for tumors involving the ileocecal valve with extension into the terminal ileum: a multicenter study from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for tumors extending into the terminal ileum remain obscure. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for tumors involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) with extension into the terminal ileum.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients (40 men; mean age, 67 years) with 68 tumors involving the ICV that were resected by ESD between December 2013 and December 2018 were included and classified into Group A (21 tumors with extension into the terminal ileum) and Group B (47 tumors without extension). ESD outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The clinical features of the patients and tumors were not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate (95% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.79), R0 resection rate (90% and 89%, respectively; p = 0.89), procedure time (95 ± 54 min and 94 ± 69 min, respectively; p = 0.64), postoperative bleeding rate (5% and 3%, respectively; p = 0.79), intraoperative perforation rate (0% and 4%, respectively; p = 0.34), delayed perforation rate (0% and 0%, respectively), or postoperative symptomatic stenosis rate (0% and 0%, respectively) between Groups A and B. No specific factors related to the outcomes of ESD were found by subgroup analysis according to the dominance and degree of circumference of the ICV. Local recurrence was observed in 1 patient in Group A who was retreated using ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for tumors involving the ICV with extension into the terminal ileum is safe and effective.

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection versus modified endoscopic mucosal resection for duodenal neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As the incidence of duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNET) is steadily increasing, the role of endoscopic treatment for appropriate lesions is becoming more significant. We aimed to compare the outcomes according to lesion size and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for DNET treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for DNET between June 2000 and December 2019 were included. The clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes were investigated by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

Overall, 104 cases underwent endoscopic resection for nonampullary DNET, including conventional EMR (n = 57), cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C, n = 19), and precut EMR (EMR-P, n = 28). The en bloc resection rates (100% vs. 94.7% vs. 96.4%) and histologic complete resection rates (45.6% vs. 52.6% vs. 57.1%) were not significantly different between the EMR, EMR-C, and EMR-P groups. The histologic complete resection rates were significantly higher in lesions < 10 mm than in lesions ≥ 10 mm (69.8% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.013). In lesions < 10 mm, perforation occurred more frequently in the modified EMR group than in the conventional EMR group (13.2% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.007). During the median follow-up period of 88.0 months, the recurrence-free survival (92.2% vs. 94.4% vs. 92.1%) and overall survival (98.0% vs. 88.1% vs. 100.0%) rates did not show significant differences between the EMR, EMR-C, and EMR-P groups.

CONCLUSION

Conventional EMR and modified EMR are feasible and effective for the treatment of nonampullary DNET sized < 10 mm and limited to mucosal and submucosal layer. Additionally, endoscopists should be aware of the high risk of perforation in modified EMR.

Feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic purse-string suture-assisted closure for mucosal defects induced by endoscopic manipulations

BACKGROUND

Large or transmural defects induced by gastrointestinal endoscopic manipulations are difficult to close, although complete closure is recommended for better recovery. Endoscopic purse-string assisted suturing (EPSS) has been used in clinical practice and has proven to be an effective and safe technique for the closure of large mucosal defects. However, details regarding the efficacy of endoscopic pre-purse-string suture (P-EPSS) are unknown, especially that it offers several advantages over conventional EPSS (C-EPSS).

AIM

To elucidate the outcomes of EPSS-assisted closure in different clinical situations, and evaluate the efficacy of P-EPSS.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included a total of 180 patients who underwent closure assisted by P-EPSS (n = 63) or C-EPSS (n = 117) between July 2014 and June 2020. The P-EPSS and C-EPSS groups were compared and the intergroup differences in aspects such as the lesion size, location, and mor-phology, incidence of complete closure, intraoperative perforation, and delayed adverse events were evaluated. Data on the features and clinical course of cases with adverse events were collected for further analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with lesion size larger than 3 cm, lesions located at the fundus of stomach, or submucosal tumors originating from the deep mucosa were more likely to undergo P-EPSS-assisted closure. The P-EPSS group showed a sign-ificantly higher proportion of intraoperative perforation (56% vs 17%) and a much shorter procedure time (9.06 ± 6.14 min vs 14.84 ± 7.25 min). Among adverse events, the incidence of delayed perforation (5% vs 4%; P = 0.82) and delayed bleeding (3% vs 4%; P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that lesions with incomplete closure [odds ratio (OR) = 21.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.45-83.45; P < 0.01] or size greater than 3 cm (OR = 3.14; 95%CI: 1.08-9.18; P = 0.039) showed a statistical tendency to result in an increase in delayed adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that EPSS could achieve secure complete closure of mucosal defect. P-EPSS could shorten the procedure and yield complete closure of mucosal defects. Rather than closure-type selection, incomplete closure or lesion size larger than 3 cm were associated with worse outcomes.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Colon and Rectum: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Multimodal assessment of colorectal polyps is needed before decision-making for endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Assessment should include morphology according to Paris classification, magnification endoscopy for vascular pattern, and Kudo pit pattern analysis. ESD should be offered to patients that have Vi pit pattern, lateral spreading tumors (LST) granular multinodular and LST nongranular, lesions with fibrosis and those in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. A defined strategy for resection and planning is crucial for successful and efficient resection with a clear audit of outcomes aiming for a perforation and bleeding rate of less than 1% and R0 resection greater than 90%.

Left colonic localization, non-granular morphology, and pit pattern independently predict submucosal fibrosis of naïve colorectal neoplasms before endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) represents the method of choice for removal of large colorectal neoplasms with suspected submucosal invasion. Presence and degree of submucosal fibrosis increases ESD duration and technical complexity, reduces the rate of curative resection and reduces safety profile. The aim of the study was to identify pre-procedural predictive factors of submucosal fibrosis in naïve colorectal neoplasms and to assess the impact of fibrosis on technical and clinical ESD outcomes.

METHODS

All consecutive ESD performed between 2014 and 2021 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. For each patient, pre-procedural, procedural, and post-procedural data were recorded. Logistic regression was used to identify pre-procedural predictive factors for submucosal fibrosis. The study was approved by Institutional Reviewer Board and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04780256).

RESULTS

One hundred-74 neoplasms (46.6% rectum, 21.8% left colon, 31.6% right colon; size 34.9 ± 17.5 mm) from 169 patients (55.0% male; 69.5 ± 10.4-year-old) were included. 106 (60.9%) neoplasms were granular type laterally spreading tumor (LST-G), 42 (24.1%) non-granular (LST-NG), and 26 (14.9%) sessile; invasive pit pattern was observed in 90 (51.7%) lesions. No fibrosis (F0) mild (F1) and severe (F2) were observed in 62 (35.6%), 92 (52.9%), and 20 (11.5%), respectively. Left colonic localization [OR 3.23 (1.1-9.31)], LST-NG morphology [OR 5.84 (2.03-16.77)] and invasive pit pattern [OR 7.11 (3.11-16.23)] were independently correlated to submucosal fibrosis. Lower curative resection rate (59.8% vs. 93.5%, P < 0.001) was observed in case of fibrosis; the incidence of adverse events was higher in case of severe fibrosis (35.5%) compared to no (3.2%) and mild fibrosis (3.3%; P < 0.001). Procedure time was significantly impacted by presence and degree of fibrosis (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Left colonic localization, LST-NG morphology, and invasive pit pattern are independent predictors of fibrosis, affecting technical and clinical ESD outcomes. Pre-procedural stratification is pivotal to estimate procedure time, required operator's experience and advanced dissection techniques. Cecinato P et al. Left colonic localization, non-granular morphology, and pit pattern independently predict submucosal fibrosis of colorectal neoplasms before endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2023.

Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

BACKGROUND

The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.

AIM

To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).

CONCLUSION

In this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

A Gut-Centric Model of Metabolic Homeostasis

Modern changes in diet and lifestyle have led to an explosion of insulin resistance and metabolic diseases around the globe which, if left unchecked, will become a principal driver of morbidity and mortality in the 21st century. The nature of the metabolic homeostatic shift within the body has therefore become a topic of considerable interest. While the gut has long been recognized as an acute nutrient sensor with signaling mechanisms to the other metabolic organs of the body, its role in regulating the body's metabolic status over longer periods of time has been underappreciated. Recent insights from bariatric surgery and intestinal nutrient stimulation experiments provide a window into the adaptive role of the intestinal mucosa in a foregut/hindgut metabolic balance model that helps to define metabolic parameters within the body-informing the metabolic regulation of insulin resistance versus sensitivity, hunger versus satiety, energy utilization versus energy storage, and protection from hypoglycemia versus protection from hyperglycemia. This intestinal metabolic balance model provides an intellectual framework with which to understand the distinct roles of proximal and distal intestinal segments in metabolic regulation. The model may also aid in the development of novel disease-modifying therapies that can correct the dysregulated metabolic signals from the intestine and stem the tide of metabolic diseases in society.