Bipolar-current needle-knife with a water jet function (Jet B-knife) shortens the procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

Efficacy of a novel one-step knife compared to conventional knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

For the treatment of advanced colorectal neoplasms, colon endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a crucial technique, although it is time-consuming. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a recently developed one-step knife (OSK) in colon ESD and compare its performance with that of a conventional knife (CK).

METHODS

Between July 2020 and November 2021, patients scheduled to undergo colorectal ESD were randomly assigned to either the OSK group or the CK group. The primary outcome was the total submucosal injection time. Additionally, total procedure time, treatment outcomes, adverse events, and operator convenience were analyzed.

RESULTS

Data from 53 patients (28 in the OSK group and 25 in the CK group) were analyzed. The mean total injection time was lower in the OSK group than in the CK group (186 s [IQR, 116.8-249.5] vs. 265 s [IQR, 130.5-553.0]), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.082). The total procedure time tended to be shorter in the OSK group than in the CK group (15.5 min [IQR, 11.3-22.8] vs. 20 min [IQR, 13.5-42.5], P = 0.110). Resection rates and adverse events did not differ between the two groups. A greater proportion of endoscopists expressed high satisfaction with the OSK, particularly regarding submucosal injection.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the CK, OSK use led to shorter injection and procedure times, though not statistically significant. The use of this newly developed endoscopic knife can potentially enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of colorectal ESD (Clinical Research Information Service: KCT0005123).

Effect of Acupotomy Combined with Electroacupuncture Therapy on Finger Mobility and Pain Relief in Patients with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Objective. To explore the effect of acupotomy in combination with electroacupuncture therapy on the finger mobility and pain relief in patients who had carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods. The clinical data of 60 CTS patients in our hospital from November 2020 to November 2021 received retrospective analysis. With 30 cases in each group, they were randomly divided into the treatment group and the control group. The control group underwent hot compress, oral medication, and local injection during hospitalization, while the treatment group received acupotomy and electroacupuncture therapy on top of the above treatments, and the clinical effects, finger mobility, and pain relief were compared between both groups. Results. The clinical indexes in the treatment group after treatment were remarkably better than those in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ), with the remarkably higher number of cured cases in the treatment group ( $P<0.05$ ). After treatment, the treatment group had remarkably higher mean total active motion (TAM) and score of the 36-item short form (SF-36) health survey and a remarkably lower mean score of visual analog scale (VAS) than those in the control group ( $P<0.001$ ). Conclusion. The quality of life and finger mobility of CTS sufferers can be improved with acupotomy in conjunction with electroacupuncture therapy. In-depth research will help build better procedures for these patients because this approach lessens the discomfort and shortens the symptom duration in CTS sufferers.

Efficacy and safety comparison of scissor-type knives with needle-type knives for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a post-hoc propensity score-matched analysis (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many knives have been developed to improve the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scissor-type knives for colorectal ESD compared with needle-type knives.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc propensity score-matched analysis in an 11-facility study between August 2013 and December 2018. A total of 2330 patients (2498 lesions) who underwent colorectal ESD were divided into needle-type (1923 patients, 2067 lesions) and scissor-type (407 patients, 431 lesions) knife groups. Short-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Two-to-one propensity score-matched analysis identified 814 (709 patients) and 407 (386 patients) lesions in the needle- and scissor-type knife groups, respectively. The median resection speed was significantly faster in the needle-type group (18.3 mm²/min) than in the scissor-type group (13.2 mm²/min, P < .0001), whereas en-bloc and histologic complete resection rates were not significantly different between the needle- and scissor-type groups (96.8% [788/814] vs 98.3% [400/407], P = .1888 and 95.1% [774/814] vs 95.6% [389/407], P = .7763, respectively). The rate of lesions resected using a single knife was significantly higher in the scissor-type group (98.5% [401/407]) than in the needle-type group (43.9% [357/814], P < .0001). Rates of intraoperative perforation and delayed bleeding were significantly lower in the scissor-type group than in the needle-type group (.7% [3/407] vs 2.5% [20/814], P = .0431 for each).

CONCLUSIONS

Scissor-type knives are safer for colorectal ESD. However, they are associated with slower resection speeds compared with needle-type knives. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016197.).

A Novelly Developed Bipolar Needle Knife Can Be an Alternative Device Choice for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (With Video)

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically difficult with high rates of complications, such as perforation and bleeding. We aimed to explore the safety and cutting efficiency of a novelly devised bipolar knife for ESD procedure.

Methods

Taking a traditional monopolar knife as a reference, the safety and feasibility of the novel bipolar knife were evaluated by an animal experiment and a human study. Furthermore, we assessed the usefulness and advantage of this novel bipolar knife by using the finite element method.

Results

A porcine experiment confirmed that there was no significant difference in wound size and cutting speed between the monopolar and bipolar knives. The thermal damage and histopathological scores produced by the two knives were similar. In addition, the porcine experiment and patients' study identified that the incidence of postoperative complications, such as bleeding, perforation, and infection, had no statistical difference between the monopolar and bipolar groups. Finally, the finite element model showed that the length and depth of thermal damage caused by the bipolar knife were, respectively, 102.77–117.98% and 80.87–84.53% of those caused by the monopolar knife at the same power.

Conclusion

The novel bipolar knife was theoretically safer than the monopolar knife and, at least, was confirmed not inferior to the monopolar knife in operability and cutting efficiency. Thus, the novel bipolar knife can be an alternative device choice for ESD.

Comparisons of outcomes between ProKnife injection endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large gastric lesions in ex vivo porcine model study: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

To compare treatment outcomes between injection endoscopic submucosal dissection using ProKnife (P‐ESD) and conventional ESD (C‐ESD) for gastric lesions.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, we compared treatment outcomes of P‐ESD and C‐ESD for simulated gastric lesions ≥3 cm in resected porcine stomachs. Predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties were investigated using logistic regression analysis.

Results

Seventy lesions were screened; however, two lesions were excluded. A total of 12 endoscopists performed 68 ESDs: 34 P‐ESDs and 34 C‐ESDs. The ESD procedure time of P‐ESD (36.3 [28.4–46.8] min) was significantly shorter than that of C‐ESD (46 [36.4–64.6] min; p = 0.0014). The technical success rates did not differ between the P‐ESD and C‐ESD groups (en bloc resection rate, 100% in both groups; complete resection rate, 94.1% and 85.3%, respectively; p = 0.23). The number of injections during P‐ESD (7.5 [6–10] times) was significantly higher than during C‐ESD (4 [3–5] times; p < 0.001), but the total volume of injected solution during P‐ESD (20 [16–26.3] ml) was significantly smaller than during C‐ESD (27.5 [20–31.5] ml; p = 0.0019). In multivariate analysis, less ESD experience (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and selection of C‐ESD as the ESD method (OR, 3.8) were independent predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties.

Conclusions

Compared with C‐ESD, P‐ESD had a shorter procedure time but also allowed for notable technical success and safety.