Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:37-51. [PMID: 32856154 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07907-8]

Patient Position in Operative Endoscopy

It is well known by surgeons that patient positioning is fundamental to exposing the organs when performing an operation via laparoscopy, as gravity can help move the organs and facilitate the exposure of the surgical site. But is it also important for endoscopic procedures? This paper examines various types of endoscopic operations and addresses the issue of the patient's position. The patient's position can be changed not only by rotating the patient along the head-toe axis but also by tilting the surgical bed, as is undertaken during laparoscopic surgical procedures. In particular, it is useful to take into account the effect of gravity on lesion exposure, tumour traction during dissection, crushing by body weight, risk of sample drop, risk of damage to adjacent organs, and anatomical exposure for procedures with radiological support. The endoscopist should always keep in mind the patient's anatomy and the position of the endoscope during operative procedures, not limited to considering only intraluminal vision.

Effectiveness of water pressure method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by novice endoscopists

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging for novice endoscopists. Not only the underwater conditions but also active use of water pressure with the water pressure method (WPM) can help widen the submucosal layer. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of WPM in colorectal ESD, especially for novice endoscopists. Methods This study was ex vivo and enrolled three novices. Each endoscopist performed conventional ESD (C-ESD) and ESD with WPM (WPM-ESD) 10 times on an excised bovine rectum. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (54 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 42-67 vs. 45 minutes, IQR 34-55, P  = 0.035). Although no significant difference in the activation time of electrical surgical unit (ESU) during the procedure was noted, the interval time during the procedure at which the ESU was not activated was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group (52 minutes, IQR 40-65 vs. 42 minutes, IQR 32-52, P  = 0.030) than in the C-ESD group. Moreover, the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (8.0 minutes, IQR 6.0-10 vs. 5.0 minutes, IQR 3.0-6.0, P  < 0.001). Conclusions The present study reveals that the WPM method significantly shortens the procedure times for novices in colorectal ESD, especially the interval time, which refers to the time spent creating the field of view, and the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa.

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.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases

Background and study aims  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods  The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results  Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm ² /min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm ² /min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions  U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Colonoscopy-related colonic ischemia

Colonoscopy is a risk factor for colon ischemia. The colon is susceptible to ischemia due to its minor blood flow compared to other abdominal organs; the etiology of colon ischemia after colonoscopy is multifactorial. The causative mechanisms include splanchnic circulation impairment, bowel preparation, drugs used for sedation, bowel wall ischemia due to insufflation/barotrauma, and introduction of the endoscope. Gastroenterologists must be aware of this condition and its risk factors for risk minimization, early diagnosis, and proper treatment.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.