Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection: a new approach for resection of large non-lifting colorectal adenomas (with video)

Endoscopic full thickness resection: techniques, applications, outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) represents a pivotal advancement in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal lesions, offering a novel approach for the management of lesions previously deemed challenging or unreachable through conventional endoscopic techniques.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the development, methodologies, applications, and clinical outcomes associated with EFTR, including exposed and device-assisted EFTR (DA-EFTR), the integration of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with EFTR in hybrid techniques, and the collaborative approach between laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery (LECS). It encapsulates a comprehensive analysis of the various EFTR techniques tailored to specific lesion characteristics and anatomical locations, underscoring the significance of technique selection based on the lesion's nature and situational context.

EXPERT OPINION/COMMENTARY

The review underscores EFTR's transformative role in expanding therapeutic horizons for gastrointestinal tumors, emphasizing the importance of technique selection tailored to the unique attributes of each lesion. It highlights EFTR's capacity to facilitate organ-preserving interventions, thereby significantly enhancing patient outcomes and reducing procedural complications. EFTR is a cornerstone in the evolution of gastrointestinal surgery, marking a significant leap forward in the pursuit of precision, safety, and efficacy in tumor management.

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32).

CONCLUSION

Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

Efficacy, Feasibility, and Safety of the X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System: A Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The application of endoscopic suturing has revolutionized defect closures. Conventional over-the-scope suturing necessitates removal of the scope, placement of the device, and reinsertion. A single channel, single sequence, through-the-scope suturing device has been developed to improve this process. This study aims to describe the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of a through-the-scope suturing device for gastrointestinal defect closure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 9 centers of consecutive adult patients who underwent suturing using the X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System (Apollo Endosurgery). The primary outcomes were technical success and long-term clinical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, recurrence, and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

In all, 56 patients (mean age 53.8, 33 women) were included. Suturing indications included fistula repair (n=22), leak repair (n=7), polypectomy defect closure (n=12), peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) site closure (n=7), perforation repair (n=6), and ulcers (n=2). Patients were followed at a mean duration of 74 days. Overall technical and long-term clinical success rates were 92.9% and 75%, respectively. Both technical and clinical success rates were 100% for polypectomies, POEM-site closures, and ulcers. Success rates were lower for the repair of fistulas (95.5% technical, 54.5% clinical), leaks (57.1%, 28.6%), and perforations (100%, 66.7%). No immediate adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

This novel, through-the-scope endoscopic suturing system, is a safe and feasible method to repair defects that are ≤3 cm. The efficacy of this device may be better suited for superficial defects as opposed to full-thickness defects. Larger defects will need more sutures and probably a double closure technique to provide a reinforcement layer.

Outcomes of endoscopic full thickness resection in the colon rectum at an Italian tertiary center

PURPOSE

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an innovative technique for the treatment of colonic lesions not feasible by conventional endoscopic resection. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for colonic lesions in a high-volume tertiary referral center.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively collected database on patients that underwent EFTR with FTRD for colonic lesions from June 2016 to January 2021 at our institution was performed. Data regarding the clinical history, previous endoscopic treatments, pathological examination, technical and histological success, and follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (26 males, median age 69 years) underwent FTRD for colonic lesion. Eighteen lesions were in the left colon, three in the transverse, and 12 in the right colon. The median size of the lesions was 13 (range 10-40) mm. Resection was technically successful in 94% of patients. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (SD ± 1.2) days. Adverse events were reported in four cases (11.4%). Histological complete resection (R0) was achieved in 93.9% of cases. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 96.8% of patients, at a median duration of 14.6 months (3-46 months). Recurrence was observed in 19.4% of cases at a median time of 3 months (3-7 months). Five patients had multiple FTRD performed, with R0 resection in three cases. In this subset, adverse events were observed in 40% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

FTRD is safe and feasible for standard indication. The non-negligible rate of recurrence observed suggests the need for close endoscopic follow-up in these patients. Multiple EFTR could help achieve complete resection in selected cases; however, in this setting, a higher risk of adverse events was observed.

Efficacy and safety of combined EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (hybrid EFTR) for large nonlifting colorectal adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has become the standard technique for selected nonlifting colorectal adenomas, but tumor size is the major limitation. However, large lesions might be approached in combination with EMR. Herein, we report the largest single-center experience to date of combined EMR and EFTR (hybrid EFTR) in patients with large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas not amenable to EMR or EFTR alone.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent hybrid EFTR of large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Outcomes of technical success (successful advancement of the FTRD with consecutive successful clip deployment and snare resection), macroscopic complete resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients with nonlifting colorectal adenomas were included. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm (range, 25-60 mm), and 66.6% were located in the right side of the colon. Technical success was 100% with macroscopic complete resection in 97.3%. Mean procedure time was 83.6 minutes. Adverse events occurred in 6.7%, leading to surgical therapy in 1.3%. Histology revealed T1 carcinoma in 16%. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 93.3% (mean follow-up time, 8.1 months; range, 3-36) and showed no signs of residual or recurrent adenoma in 88.6%. Recurrence (11.4%) was treated endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid EFTR is safe and effective for advanced colorectal adenoma that cannot be approached by EMR or EFTR alone. Hybrid EFTR expands the indication of EFTR substantially in selected patients.

Recent advances and current challenges in endoscopic resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a viable technique in the management of mucosal and subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) not amenable to conventional therapeutic approaches. While various devices and techniques have been described for EFTR, a single, combined full-thickness resection and closure device (full-thickness resection device, FTRD system, Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tuebingen, Germany) has become commercially available in recent years. Initially, the FTRD system was limited to use in the colorectum only. Recently, a modified version of the FTRD has been released for EFTR in the upper GIT as well. This review provides a broad summary of the FTRD, highlighting recent advances and current challenges.

Current status of endoscopic full-thickness resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an integral part of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Since its market launch in Europe in 2014, its safety and effectiveness have been proven in numerous studies. Adaptations in design as well as new techniques, such as hybrid EFTR, expand the spectrum of the FTRD system. The following review is intended to provide an overview of the clinical application and current evidence of EFTR with the FTRD system.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgical Submucosal Dissection for Recurrent Rectal Adenomas

BACKGROUND

The local resection of recurrent rectal adenomas is a technically challenging task associated with increased local recurrence rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) uses traction to better expose the fibrotic submucosal layer, and therefore, is a valuable alternative for the treatment of such lesions. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of TEM-ESD for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed all TEM-ESD procedures performed in the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital between 2012 and 2021 and isolated all cases of recurrent adenomas. Subsequently, we matched these cases 1:1 to TEM-ESD cases for primary rectal adenomas according to the size, localization, and histological type of the lesions and compared the outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

We identified 19 cases matching our criteria. The median diameter of the lesions was 25 mm and the median operating time 39 min. Macroscopic en bloc resection was achieved in 100% of the cases and histological complete en bloc resection in 78.9%. There was 1 case of conservatively treated postoperative bleeding. After a median follow-up period of 36 months, there was one local recurrence. After comparing those findings to the outcomes of TEM-ESD for primary rectal lesions, we found no significant differences on total operating time, complete en bloc resection rates, adverse events, and local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

TEM-ESD is a feasible therapeutic option for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas, offering short operating times as well as high en bloc resection and low recurrence rates.

Initial multicenter experience using a novel endoscopic tack and suture system for challenging GI defect closure and stent fixation (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Closure of endoscopic resection defects can be achieved with through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, or endoscopic suturing. However, these devices are often limited by their inability to close large, irregular, and difficult-to-reach defects. Thus, we aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of a novel through-the-scope, suture-based closure system developed to overcome these limitations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 8 centers in the United States. Primary outcomes were feasibility and safety of early use of the device. Secondary outcomes were assessment of need for additional closure devices, prolonged procedure time, and technical feasibility of performing the procedure with an alternative device(s).

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients (48.4% women) with mean age 63.6 ± 13.1 years were included. Technical success was achieved in 83 patients (89.2%), and supplemental closure was required in 24.7% of patients (n = 23) with a mean defect size of 41.6 ± 19.4 mm. Closure with an alternative device was determined to be impossible in 24.7% of patients because of location, size, or shape of the defect. The use of the tack and suture device prolonged the procedure in 8.6% of cases but was considered acceptable. Adverse events occurred in 2 patients (2.2%) over a duration of follow-up of 34 days (interquartile range, 13-93.5) and were mild and moderate in severity. No serious adverse events or procedure-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel endoscopic through-the-scope tack and suture system is safe, efficient, and permits closure of large and irregularly shaped defects that were not possible with established devices.

Endoscopic full-thickness dissection (EFTD) in the rectum: a case series

Background

Rectal endoscopic full- thickness dissection (EFTD) using a flexible colonoscope is an alternative to the well-established trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and the trans-anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) techniques for resecting dysplastic or malignant rectal lesions. This study evaluated EFTD safety by analyzing outcomes of the first patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway.

Methods

The first 10 patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway April, 2016 and January, 2021, were included in the study. The procedural indications for EFTD were therapeutic resection of non-lifting adenoma, T1 adenocarcinoma (AC), recurrent neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and re-excision of a T1-2 AC.

Results

EFTD rectal specimen histopathology revealed three ACs, five adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), one NET and one benign lesion. Six procedures had negative lateral and vertical resection margins and in three cases lateral margins could not be evaluated due to piece-meal dissection or heat damaged tissue. Two patients experienced delayed post-procedural hemorrhage, one of whom also presented with a concurrent post-procedural infection. No serious complications occurred.

Conclusion

Preliminary results from this introductory trial indicate that EFTD in the rectum can be conducted with satisfactory perioperative results and low risk of serious complications.

Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colonic polyps harboring a small focus of invasive cancer: a case series

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6-27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) in the colon

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has expanded the possibilities of endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) combines a clip-based defect closure and snare resection in a single device.

METHODS

 Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the FTRD in the colon.

RESULTS

 A total of 26 studies (12 published as full-text articles and 14 conference papers) with 1538 FTRD procedures were included. The pooled estimate for reaching the target lesion was 96.1 % (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 94.6-97.1) and 90.0 % (95 % CI: 87.0-92.3) for technically successful resection. Pooled estimate of histologically complete resection was 77.8 % (95 % CI: 74.7-80.6). Adverse events occurred at a pooled estimate rate of 8.0 % (95 % CI: 5.8-10.4). Pooled estimates for bleeding and perforation were 1.5 % (95 % CI: 0.3-3.3) and 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.0-0.9), respectively. The rate for need of emergency surgery after FTRD was 1.0 % (95 % CI: 0.4-1.8).

CONCLUSION

 The use of the FTRD in the colon shows very high rates of technical success and complete resection (R0) as well as a low risk of adverse events. Emergency surgery after colonic FTRD resection is necessary in single cases only.

Hybrid resection of large colorectal adenomas combining EMR and FTRD

BACKGROUND

The introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allowed resection of difficult adenomas in the duodenum and colorectum with non-lifting. The main limitation of this endoscopic technique is the lesion size. We describe a hybrid approach combining endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and FTRD in a cohort of 17 patients to reduce tumor size and enable full-thickness resection.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis from data of 17 patients who underwent hybrid EMR-FTRD for large adenomas in the colorectum at our institution. Technical success, histological confirmation of margin-free resection and adverse advents were studied.

RESULTS

16 of 17 (94.1%) lesions could be resected macroscopically complete with confirmed full-thickness resection. Histological work-up of the full-thickness specimens showed free lateral margins in 13 patients (76.4%), unclear margins in two patients (11.8%) and positive margins in two patients (11.8%). There were no immediate perforation or major bleeding, however one patient showed a stenosis after resection in the follow-up endoscopy. Follow-up endoscopy was available in 12 patients. In two of 12 patients a recurrent adenoma was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid EMR-EFTR in the colorectum seems to be a safe and effective technique for large non-lifting lesions with positive lifting signs in the margins. Further prospective evaluation of efficacy, safety and long-term outcome of this hybrid technique is necessary.

Outcomes of a hybrid technique using EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection for polyps not amenable to standard techniques (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) offers a safe and effective approach for resection of complex colorectal lesions but is limited to lesions <2 cm in size. A hybrid approach-combining EMR with the FTRD-significantly expands the pool of lesions amenable to this technique; however, its safety and efficacy has not been well established.

METHODS

We report a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness resection (FTR) of colorectal lesions, either with a standalone FTRD or a hybrid (EMR + FTRD) approach. Outcomes of technical success, clinical success (macroscopically complete resection), R0 resection, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine FTR procedures (38 standalone FTR and 31 hybrid EMR + FTR) were performed on 65 patients. The most common indications were nonlifting polyp (43%) or suspected high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (38%). Hybrid EMR + FTR permitted resection of significantly larger lesions (mean, 39 mm; range, 15-70 mm) compared with standalone FTR (mean, 17 mm; range, 7-25 mm; P < .01). Clinical success (91%), technical success (83%), and R0 resection (81%) rates did not differ between standalone and hybrid groups. Most patients (96%) were discharged home on the day of the procedure. Three AEs occurred, including 2 patients who developed acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid approach combining EMR and FTRD maintains safety and efficacy while permitting resection of significantly larger lesions than FTRD alone.

Risk of appendicitis after endoscopic full-thickness resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

 Conventional endoscopic resection of lesions affecting the appendiceal orifice is difficult. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel technique in interventional endoscopy. As EFTR near the appendiceal orifice is associated with a subtotal appendectomy, it remains unclear whether the risk of developing appendicitis is increased. We conducted a retrospective analysis of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice treated by EFTR.

METHODS

 This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients (n = 50) treated with EFTR for lesions involving the appendiceal orifice between 2014 and 2019. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence of appendicitis.

RESULTS

 Acute appendicitis occurred in seven patients (14 %) during follow-up. Conservative treatment was sufficient in four cases, and three patients underwent appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

 EFTR of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice may be associated with an imminent risk of developing appendicitis and a consecutive need for appendectomy. Patients should be informed about this specific risk prior to resection. It is unclear why some patients develop appendicitis while the majority remains asymptomatic.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection in the Colorectum: Results From the German Colonic FTRD Registry

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a powerful option for resection of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allows clip-assisted EFTR with a single-step technique. We report on results of a large nationwide FTRD registry.

METHODS

The "German colonic FTRD registry" was created to further assess efficacy and safety of the FTRD System after approval in Europe. Data were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-five centers contributed 1,178 colorectal FTRD procedures. Indications for EFTR were difficult adenomas (67.1%), early carcinomas (18.4%), subepithelial tumors (6.8%), and diagnostic EFTR (1.3%). Mean lesion size was 15 × 15 mm and most lesions were pretreated endoscopically (54.1%). Technical success was 88.2% and R0 resection was achieved in 80.0%. R0 resection was significantly higher for subepithelial tumor compared with that for other lesions. No difference in R0 resection was found for smaller vs larger lesions or for colonic vs rectal procedures. Adverse events occurred in 12.1% (3.1% major events and 2.0% required surgical treatment). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 58.0% and showed residual/recurrent lesions in 13.5%, which could be managed endoscopically in most cases (77.2%).

DISCUSSION

To date, this is the largest study of colorectal EFTR using the FTRD System. The study demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety for "difficult-to-resect" colorectal lesions and confirms results of previous studies in a large "real-world" setting. Further studies are needed to compare EFTR with other advanced resection techniques and evaluate long-term outcome.

Devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of residual and fibrotic colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

METHODS

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

RESULTS

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.

Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels

Introduction

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR.

Material and methods

In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications.

Results

Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4–88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8–83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1–93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation.

Discussion

In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07772-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical efficacy of the over-the-scope clip device: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system has been increasingly utilized as a non-surgical option to endoscopically manage refractory gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage, perforations/luminal defects and fistulas. Limited data exist evaluating the efficacy and safety of OTSC.

AIM

To determine the clinical success and adverse event (AE) rates of OTSC across all GI indications.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted for eligible articles describing the application of the OTSC system for any indication in the GI tract. Any article or case series reporting data for less than 5 total patients was excluded. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical success. Secondary outcomes included: Technical success rate, OTSC-related AE rate and requirement for surgical intervention despite-OTSC placement. Pooled rates (per-indication and overall) were calculated as the number of patients with the event of interest divided by the total number of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 85 articles met our inclusion criteria (n = 3025 patients). OTSC was successfully deployed in 94.4% of patients (n = 2856/3025). The overall rate of clinical success (all indications) was 78.4% (n = 2371/3025). Per-indication clinical success rates were as follows: (1) 86.0% (1120/1303) for GI hemorrhage; (2) 85.3% (399/468) for perforation; (3) 55.8% (347/622) for fistulae; (4) 72.6% (284/391) for anastomotic leaks; (5) 92.8% (205/221) for defect closure following endoscopic resection (e.g., following endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection); and (6) 80.0% (16/20) for stent fixation. AE’s related to the deployment of OTSC were only reported in 64 of 85 studies (n = 1942 patients), with an overall AE rate of 2.1% (n = 40/1942). Salvage surgical intervention was required in 4.7% of patients (n = 143/3025).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrates that the OTSC system is a safe and effective endoscopic therapy to manage GI hemorrhage, perforations, anastomotic leaks, defects created by endoscopic resections and for stent fixation. Clinical success in fistula management appears limited. Further studies, including randomized controlled trials comparing OTSC with conventional and/or surgical therapies, are needed to determine which indication(s) are the most effective for its use.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

RESULTS

A total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8-97.3%), 89.5% (83.9-94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1-92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4-4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00-1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1-6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1-14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5-90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4-11.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications.

Endoscopic resection for subepithelial lesions-pure endoscopic full-thickness resection and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) are the frontier of therapeutic endoscopic. These two methods rely on the skillset and equipment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) while going beyond the boundaries of the gastrointestinal lumen. They are both representatives of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with STER being a direct off-shoot of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Both techniques are designed for the removal of gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria but tend to be used in different organs and come with respective challenges. In this review we will go over the history, indication, technique and literature of these two techniques.

Quality of endoscopy reporting at index colonoscopy significantly impacts outcome of subsequent EMR in patients with > 20 mm colon polyps

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is safe and cost-effective in management of patients with colon polyps. However, very little is known about the actions of the referring endoscopist following identification of these lesions at index colonoscopy, and the impact of those actions on the outcome of subsequent referral for EMR. The aim of this study was to identify practices at index colonoscopy that lead to failure of subsequent EMR. Patients and methods  Two hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with biopsy-proven non-malignant colon polyps (> 20 mm) referred for EMR were analyzed to identify practices that could be improved from the time of identifying the lesion at index colonoscopy until completion of therapy. Results  EMR was abandoned at colonoscopy at the EMR center in 71 of 289 patients (24.6 %). Reasons for abandoning EMR included diagnosis of invasive carcinoma (n = 9; 12.7 %), tethered lesions (n = 21; 29.6 %) from prior endoscopic interventions, and overly large (n = 22; 31 %) and inaccessible lesions (n = 17; 24 %) for complete and safe resection whose details were not recorded in the referring endoscopy report, or polyposis syndromes (n = 2; 2.8 %) that were not recognized. Conclusions  In our practice, one in four EMR attempts were abandoned as a result of inadequate diagnosis or management by the referring endoscopist, which could be improved by education on optical diagnosis of polyps, comprehensive documentation of the procedure and avoidance of interventions that preclude resection.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: is it feasible?

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a new technique for the resection of colonic lesions with limitations for other techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) due to fibrosis, the location of the lesion or invasion depth. In addition, techniques such as ESD require a long learning curve and unfortunately they are not fully implemented in Western countries. EFTR has numerous indications, which are expanding daily. The Full-Thickness Resection Device® (FTRD) is a promising tool, although it has many limitations and is associated with some risks. One of the main limitations of this resection device is the size of the lesion and it is not recommended for the resection of lesions > 30 mm. Furthermore, tumor size is directly related to the "en bloc" resection rate. On the one hand, this case report suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy can modify the lesion size and larger lesions become candidates for EFTR in a second attempt. On the other hand, the concomitant use of systemic anticancer therapy could be a contraindication for the use of FTRD® as it may be associated with late perforations. It is necessary to establish the time between the use of chemotherapy and the use of FTRD® in order to avoid complications. These considerations must be analyzed in future prospective studies.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of Colorectal Lesions with the New FTRD System: Single-Center Experience

Background and Aims

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique for the treatment of various conditions for which classic endoscopic resection techniques have failed or were considered to be at high risk for perforation. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an over-the-scope system which allows a single-step EFTR. The aim of our study is to describe our experience in EFTR of colorectal lesions using the FTRD.

Methods

Nine patients (10 colorectal lesions) were proposed for EFTR. Safety, R0 resection and endoscopic treatment success were evaluated.

Results

Reasons for referral included nonlifting adenomas (n = 4), nonlifting adenoma recurrence (n = 5), and submucosal lesion (n = 1). EFTR was technically successful in all patients. The mean duration of the procedure was 55 min. R0 resection was obtained in all patients. No major complications were detected. All lesions were successfully treated by the endoscopic technique and no patient was referred for surgery. In patients with available follow-up (n = 6), no recurrence was detected.

Conclusions

EFTR is a feasible, reasonable time-consuming, safe, and promising endoscopic resection technique.

Key Messages

FTRD is an additional tool for difficult-to-treat colorectal lesions.

Colonoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device: a prospective multicentre study in various indications

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel treatment of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the full-thickness resection device.

DESIGN

181 patients were recruited in 9 centres with the indication of difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early cancers and subepithelial tumours (SET). Primary endpoint was complete en bloc and R0 resection.

RESULTS

EFTR was technically successful in 89.5%, R0 resection rate was 76.9%. In 127 patients with difficult adenomas and benign histology, R0 resection rate was 77.7%. In 14 cases, lesions harboured unsuspected cancer, another 15 lesions were primarily known as cancers. Of these 29 cases, R0 resection was achieved in 72.4%; 8 further cases had deep submucosal infiltration >1000 µm. Therefore, curative resection could only be achieved in 13/29 (44.8%). In the subgroup with SET (n=23), R0 resection rate was 87.0%. In general, R0 resection rate was higher with lesions ≤2 cm vs >2 cm (81.2% vs 58.1%, p=0.0038). Adverse event rate was 9.9% with a 2.2% rate of emergency surgery. Three-month follow-up was available from 154 cases and recurrent/residual tumour was evident in 15.3%.

CONCLUSION

EFTR has a reasonable technical efficacy especially in lesions ≤2 cm with acceptable complication rates. Curative resection rate for early cancers was too low to recommend its primary use in this indication. Further comparative studies have to show the clinical value and long-term outcome of EFTR in benign colorectal lesions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02362126; Results.