Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors

Exploring different techniques for endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastrointestinal lesions: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has revolutionized the management of early gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms by enabling en bloc resection with high R0 rates. Several modifications of conventional ESD (C-ESD) have been introduced, including pocket-creation (PCM-ESD), tunnel (T-ESD), traction-assisted (TA-ESD), and saline immersion therapeutic endoscopy (SITE-ESD) methods.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across main databases through February 2025 using keywords related to ESD, with studies selected based on their relevance. While no single technique has demonstrated superior efficacy and safety across different GI regions, a tailored and integrative approach to different techniques could enhance effectiveness. PCM-ESD and T-ESD are particularly advantageous circumferential lesions in the esophagus and rectum, whereas TA-ESD significantly reduces procedure time, particularly in colonic lesions. Moreover, PCM-ESD has demonstrated higher effectiveness for colorectal lesions compared to C-ESD. SITE-ESD has shown benefits in colorectal resections by improving trimming, submucosal space visualization and coagulation control.Advanced traction systems and resection tools has optimized ESD performance. However, selecting the most appropriate approach requires careful consideration of lesion characteristics (particularly fibrosis and location).

EXPERT OPINION

While conventional ESD remains the foundation, TA and SITE are expected to become the preferred approach in select GI regions during the following years.

Usefulness of the Bridge Formation Method for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Aims

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard treatment for superficial colorectal neoplasms worldwide. However, challenges remain in achieving dissection at the precise layer. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a novel ESD technique involving natural traction, referred to as the bridge formation method (BFM).

Methods and Results

The two main features of the BFM are creating a large mucosal flap and leaving normal mucosa on both sides of the lesion until the bridge is made at the end of the procedure. This retrospective study included consecutive patients with 2647 colorectal lesions resected by ESD from September 2003 to December 2023. We divided them into the BFM group and the non-BFM group and conducted propensity score matching.After propensity score matching, 1648 cases were enrolled (824 cases in each group). The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the BFM than non-BFM group (99.6% vs. 96.7%, p < 0.01). The R0 resection rate and the average dissection speed (㎟/min) were significantly higher in the BFM than non-BFM group (98.8% vs. 96.4%, p < 0.01, and 18.9 vs. 18.0, p = 0.03). The occurrence rates of perforation and delayed bleeding showed no significant difference between the non-BFM and BFM groups (2.8% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.40, and 1.1% vs. 1.0%, p = 1.00).

Conclusions

The BFM is a suitable method for colorectal ESD as it enables rapid dissection and improves both en bloc resection and R0 resection rates.

Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques

The concept of submucosal space, or rather the "third space", located between the intact mucosal flap and the muscularis propria layer of the gastrointestinal tract, represents a tunnel that the endoscopist could use to perform interventions in the muscularis propria layer or breech it to enter the mediastinum or the peritoneal cavity without full thickness perforation. The tunnel technique can be used both for the removal of mucosal tumours, called endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD), for the removal of subepithelial tumours (SELs), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection (STER), and for the removal of extra-luminal lesions (for example in the mediastinum or in the rectum), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumours (STER-ET). Aim of this updated narrative review, is to summarize the evidences that analyses indications, and outcomes of tunnelling techniques for the treatment of above mentioned lesions.

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

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

Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection of distal rectal polyp in a patient with portal hypertension complicated by bowel obstruction

Video 1Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection of distal rectal polyp in a patient with portal hypertension complicated by bowel obstruction.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Several techniques, such as traction techniques, pocket techniques and others, have been proposed to facilitate it. One modified pocket technique especially suitable for large lesions is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESTD and compare ESTD to the conventional ESD (CESD) for treating large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

The charts of consecutive patients referred to the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (Reggio Emilia, Italy) for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms > 40 mm were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, procedure speed, the adverse events rate and the recurrence rate.

RESULTS

There were 59 patients (M:F ratio 29:30, median age 70 years [range 50-93 years]). Of 59 colorectal lesions > 40 mm, 25 were removed by ESTD and 34 by CESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups and the complete resection rate was similar (ESTD 92% vs CESD 97.1%, p = 0.569), while the curative resection rate was higher in the CESD group, but not significantly (94.1% vs 76%, p = 0.061). Procedure speed was significantly faster with ESTD (22 vs 17 mm²/min, p = 0.045), and the overall incidence of adverse events was low (6.8%). Eight patients were referred to surgery due to non-curative resection. During follow-up, no recurrence was observed in either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

ESTD achieves a very high en bloc resection rate and is faster than CESD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of pocket-creation method for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting during ESD have been demonstrated. Additionally, ESD is time-consuming and poses a high risk of perforation and bleeding when performed in challenging locations. The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal tumors, while the outcomes of application in the treatment of EGCs are rarely reported. In the present study, we aimed to compare the technical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD and the conventional ESD (c-ESD) technique for the treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study consisting of 162 patients with EGCs who underwent ESD between February 2019 and February 2021. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

PCM-ESD was more likely to be used in patients with larger lesions than c-ESD with/without traction. In addition, the resection speed for lesions of the PCM-ESD was faster compared with c-ESD without traction (median dissection speed: 19.6 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p < 0.001) and c-ESD with traction (median dissection speed after PSM: 19.9 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p = 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of PCM-ESD (p = 0.034), the long diameter of the resected lesion (p = 0.001), and lesion location (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, PCM-ESD appeared to be a safer and more effective treatment for EGCs than c-ESD. In addition, PCM-ESD could significantly improve the speed of tumor resection.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal neoplasia performed with a waterjet system-assisted knife: higher en-bloc resection rate than conventional technique

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique.

METHODS

The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD.

CONCLUSION

WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

Comparison between endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction: a case-matched controlled study of a single center from China

BACKGROUND

So far, little evidence is available for the comprehensive comparison of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction (EGJ).

METHODS

EGJ superficial neoplasia patients with ESTD treatment between January, 2021 and August, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and individually matched at 1:1 ratio with those with ESD treatment according to lesion size, specimen area and lesion location, forming ESTD and ESD group, respectively. A sample size of 17 patients was collected for each group. Treatment outcomes including resection time, specimen area, and resection speed as well as occurrence of complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with ESD group, ESTD group got shorter resection time (111.00 ± 11.70 min for ESD group vs. 71.59 ± 6.18 min for ESTD group, p = 0.008) and faster section speed (0.23 ± 0.03 cm2/min for ESD group vs. 0.37 ± 0.06 cm2/min for ESTD group, p = 0.012). No complication was found to occur in ESTD group, while 1 patient with MP damage and 1 with delayed bleeding was found in ESD group.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of EGJ superficial neoplasia, ESTD is a safer and more effective and reliable endoscopic technique compared with ESD.

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.