Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection reduces procedure time and risk of serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Rubber Bands and Clips Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The rising number of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including esophageal, gastric, and colorectal tumors, makes it essential to develop more effective treatment methods. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a popular intervention due to its ability to resect the tumor completely and prevent local recurrence. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of ESD with rubber bands and clips (ESD-RBC) in the treatment of various GI tumors. We systematically searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane databases until April 20, 2024. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies focusing on ESD-RBC alone or compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD) in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan and R software. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving R0 resection and en bloc resection (OR: 1.99 with 95% CI [1.17 to 3.36], P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) and (OR: 5.98 with 95% CI [2.30 to 15.55]; P = 0.0002, I2 = 0%), respectively. ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed compared to C-ESD (MD: 8.48 mm2/min with 95% CI [3.12 to 13.83]; P < 0.00001, I2 = 89%) and shortened the procedure duration (MD: - 11.94 min with 95% CI [- 21.98 to - 1.91]; P < 0.00001, I2 = 7%). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of bleeding and delayed bleeding (OR: 1.08 with 95% CI [0.37 to 3.14]; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%) and (OR: 0.69 with 95% CI [0.20 to 2.33]; P = 0.55, I2 = 0%), respectively. The proportion of R0 resection using ESD-RBC was 90%, with 95% CI [65% to 98%] and I2 = 78%. The en bloc resection rate was 96%, with 95% CI [95% to 97%], and I2 = 0%. In addition, the raw mean (MRAW) of resection speed was 24.25 mm2/min, with 95% CI [13.48 to 35.02], and I2 = 99.4%. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving en bloc resection and R0 resection with a comparable risk of bleeding and delayed bleeding. In addition, ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed and shortened the procedure duration.

Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study

Background and study aims

To address the challenges of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), conversion to snare resection (rescue-snare ESD: rSnare), a variant of hybrid ESD, is commonly proposed. However, rSnare is associated with a lower en bloc resection rate compared with conventional ESD. Traction-assisted ESD has emerged as a technique to facilitate dissection, but its effectiveness as a rescue method remains unclear. This study was the first to compare the effectiveness of rSnare and rescue-traction-assisted ESD (rTraction).

Patients and methods

This retrospective study involved 1464 consecutive lesions from 1372 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms across eight institutions. Among these, 162 lesions required rescue methods of rSnare or rTraction. After propensity score matching, 88 lesions treated with either rSnare or rTraction were analyzed.

Results

The rTraction group exhibited significantly higher en bloc resection and R0 resection rates (93.2% and 77.3%, respectively) compared with the rSnare group (45.5% and 38.6%, respectively). However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the rTraction group (122.3 ± 72.5 min) compared with the rSnare group (92.2 ± 54.2 min). In the rTraction group, univariable and multivariable analyses identified traction initiation time > 75 minutes as the only independent predictor of procedure durations exceeding 120 minutes.

Conclusions

Utilizing a traction device as a rescue technique in difficult colorectal ESD resulted in higher en bloc and R0 resection rates compared with conversion to snare resection. Initiating traction within 75 minutes may contribute to reducing overall procedure time for challenging colorectal ESD cases.

Giant gastric leiomyoma excision using endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss clip traction technique: a case report

For gastric leiomyomas measuring ≥5 cm, endoscopic resection is necessary. The larger size of these tumors significantly impairs the resection field of view, increasing the risk of intraoperative bleeding and perforation and potentially leading to incomplete tumor removal. The combination of dental floss and tissue clip traction techniques is commonly used for resecting mucosal lesions but is rarely reported for submucosal tumors. We recently completed a case of endoscopic resection of a giant gastric leiomyoma in the body of the stomach, approximately 7 cm in length, using endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss clip traction. The dissection was carefully controlled within the muscularis propria layer, avoiding damage to the serosa. No bleeding or perforation occurred. A special technique was employed to avoid damage to the muscle layer. By combining this technique with tissue forceps, better traction stability may have been achieved. During the traction process, slight tension was consistently maintained between the swelling and the muscle layer, preventing perforation due to traction. The resection field remained clear throughout the procedure, which lasted 50 minutes in total. The final outcome was satisfactory. This method may be worthy of clinical application.

Advances in Endoscopic Resection

This article provides an overview of recent advances in endoscopic resection techniques. It includes the brief overview of endoscopic submucosal dissection, regional differences in ESD indications, innovation of ESD techniques, and expansion to full-thickness resection. The article covers cold snare polypectomy for small polyps with tips, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) for sessile lesions with tips and expanding role of U-EMR, and the key assistive techniques for ESD that have improved the safety and efficacy. Furthermore, it discusses the emerging field of endoscopic full-thickness resection including device-assisted and freehand exposure techniques.

Conventional versus rubber band traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of gastrointestinal tumors, including rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs). However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted ESD for the treatment of small rectal lesions are still debated.

AIMS

We conducted a study to compare the efficacy and safety of rubber band traction-assisted ESD (RBT-ESD) to conventional ESD (C-ESD).

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with r-NET treated with ESD between October 2021 and October 2023. Our study assessed differences between the groups in the complete resection rate of lesions, muscular layer injury, surgical complications, operation time, resection speed, time to liquid diet, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients with r-NETs participated in this study (RBT-ESD group, n = 27; C-ESD group, n = 92). The operation time in RBT-ESD group was shorter than in C-ESD group, but the difference was not statistically significant (16.0 min [9.0-22.0 min] vs. 18.0 min [13.3-27.0 min], P = 0.056). However, the resection speed was significantly faster in the RBT-ESD group (6.7 vs. 4.1 mm2/min, P = 0.005). Furthermore, the RBT-ESD group showed significantly less muscular layer injury (P = 0.047) and faster diet recovery (P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in the complete resection rate, surgical complications, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, or recurrence rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

For r-NETs of < 2 cm in size, the RBT method did not significantly shorten the operation time but resulted in faster resection speed, less muscular layer injury, and earlier postoperative recovery to a liquid diet.

Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for colorectal lesions, the traction method (T-ESD) allows the lesion to be stabilized with easier dissection. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results on the clinical outcomes of T-ESD as compared with C-ESD. We conducted a meta-analysis to compile the data.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for RCTs evaluating C-ESD versus T-ESD for colorectal tumors. The end points of interest were procedure time (min), resection speed (mm²/min), R0 resection, en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 566 patients (C-ESD n=284, T-ESD n=282) were included. The mean age was 67±10 y and 60% were men. As compared with the T-ESD technique, the C-ESD group was associated with longer procedure time (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23, P <0.00001) and lesser resection speed (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.06, P =0.04). No significant difference was found in the 2 groups with respect to R0 resection rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P =0.87), en bloc resection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, P =0.35), delayed bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.59, P =0.55) and perforation (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 6.27, P =0.16).

DISCUSSION

On meta-analysis, pooled procedure time was significantly faster with T-ESD compared with C-ESD. The clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of a Gastric Subepithelial Tumor: A Case Report

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered curative for patients with early gastrointestinal cancers. However, it is a technically challenging procedure that can be time-consuming and associated with complications such as bleeding and perforation. Traction devices and techniques have been developed to mitigate these risks and reduce procedure times. Most traction devices are unavailable in New Zealand, and traction techniques have not been widely utilized due to the precision required for successful outcomes. We report the first case of traction-assisted ESD performed in New Zealand for a gastric submucosal tumor. The procedure was successfully performed using the clip with rubber band traction technique. The lesion was resected en bloc, and histology confirmed an R0, curative resection. There were no complications, and the total procedure time was 54 minutes. In conclusion, traction techniques can be effectively employed for ESD in lesions with difficult submucosal access. They contribute to safer dissections and reduced procedure times.

Novel devices for third-space endoscopy procedures

Third-space endoscopy (TSE) is a subspecialty in interventional endoscopy that exploits the submucosa as a working space for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases. Over recent years, TSE has emerged as a viable alternative to surgery for the treatment of various conditions. The rapid dissemination and adoption of TSE has been largely supported by the advent of novel devices aimed to improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. In this article, we review some of the recent developments in TSE devices and provide our initial experience with these instruments in clinical practice.

Predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A Honam Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (HASID) multicenter study

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a promising but challenging procedure. It is not widely performed due to its technical difficulty. We aimed to find the predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal ESD before the procedure. Clinical data from patients who underwent ESD for colorectal tumors in 5 hospitals in Honam province of South Korea between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Technically difficult colorectal ESD procedure was defined in 3 points. Long procedure time (longer than 60 minutes), occurrence of perforation, and failure of en bloc resection. Factors associated with technically difficult ESD were included as main outcome measure. 1446 patients were identified and their data were analyzed. Median procedure time was 30.0 minutes and median long axis of the tumor was 20.1 mm. Technically difficult procedures including long procedure time were 231 cases (16.0%), perforation occurred in 34 cases (2.3%), and en bloc resection was done in 1292 cases (89.3%). Tumor size larger than 35 mm (odd ratio [OR]: 1.474, P = .047), central depression or ulceration in the lesion (OR: 1.474, P = .013), previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or polypectomy procedure (OR: 2.428, P = .020) were associated with technically difficult ESD. Descending colon-located tumor (OR: 5.355, P < .001), and use of IT knife (OR: 4.157, P = .003) were associated with perforation. Recognizing factors associated with technically difficult ESD can help in planning the ESD procedure beforehand.

Western outcomes of circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries.

METHODS

We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%.

CONCLUSIONS

In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures.

The Impact of Traction Methods on Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Efficacy for Gastric Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms can be challenging due to limited traction and visualization. The efficacy of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (TA-ESD) continues to require additional validation. This study aims to explore the safety and efficiency of TA-ESD for early gastric neoplasms located at varying sites, in comparison with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using databases up until August 2022. The outcome measures procedure time, en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, and procedure-related adverse event rate. We calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) for these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the TA-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group (MD - 14.9, 95% CI - 21.78 to - 8.03, I2 = 83%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis revealed that mean procedure times for lesions on the greater curvature and upper/middle of the stomach were significantly shorter in the TA-ESD group - 19.2 min (95% CI - 27.75 to - 10.65, I2 = 12%, p < 0.0001) and - 7.35 min (95% CI - 35.4 to - 1.15, p = 0.04), respectively. The en bloc resection and complete resection rates were comparable between the two groups. The rate of perforation was significantly lower in the TA-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.85, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the potential benefits of TA-ESD over C-ESD in treating patients with early-stage gastric tumors, highlighting its safety and efficacy. The findings indicate a significant reduction in procedure times at challenging stomach sites with TA-ESD in comparison to C-ESD.

Conventional Versus Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal, Gastric, and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being utilized for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, the long procedure time poses a technical challenge for conventional ESD (C-ESD). Traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) was developed to facilitate the procedure by reducing its duration. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus T-ESD in the treatment of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Traction-assisted ESD exhibited shorter mean dissection times for the esophagus and colorectal regions and lower perforation rates in colorectal cases. No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection or bleeding rates. Traction-assisted ESD proves to be more efficient in mean procedure time for esophageal and colorectal cases and safer in perforation rates for colorectal cases, but similar rates are noted for en bloc resection or bleeding.

Implementation of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Spain: Results from the nationwide registry

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus have not been assessed in our country. Our primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Analysis of the prospectively maintained national registry of ESD. We included all superficial esophageal lesions removed by ESD in 17 hospitals (20 endoscopists) between January 2016 and December 2021. Subepithelial lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was curative resection. We conducted a survival analysis and used logistic regression analysis to assess predictors of non-curative resection.

RESULTS

A total of 102 ESD were performed on 96 patients. The technical success rate was 100% and the percentage of en-bloc resection was 98%. The percentage of R0 and curative resection was 77.5% (n=79; 95%CI: 68%-84%) and 63.7% (n=65; 95%CI: 54%-72%), respectively. The most frequent histology was Barrett-related neoplasia (n=55 [53.9%]). The main reason for non-curative resection was deep submucosal invasion (n=25). The centers with a lower volume of ESD obtained worse results in terms of curative resection. The rate of perforation, delayed bleeding and post-procedural stenosis were 5%, 5% and 15.7%, respectively. No patient died or required surgery due to an adverse effect. After a median follow-up of 14months, 20patients (20.8%) underwent surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy, and 9 patients died (mortality 9.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Spain, esophageal ESD is curative in approximately two out of three patients, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.

Endoscopic resection of a subepithelial gastric lesion using a dual endoscope with a through-the-scope traction device

Watch a video of this article.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes between early gastric cardiac and non-cardiac cancers: a retrospective single-center study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between early gastric cardiac cancer (EGCC) and early gastric non-cardiac cancer (EGNCC), and investigate associated risk factors for non-curative resection.

METHODS

Early gastric cancer (EGC) patients who underwent ESD from January 2015 to September 2020 in Beijing Friendship Hospital were consecutively enrolled. The clinical, histopathological and endoscopic data were retrospectively analyzed. The study was registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800017117).

RESULTS

Among 500 patients with 534 EGC lesions, 117 patients with 118 lesions were allocated to the EGCC group, and 383 patients with 416 lesions to the EGNCC group. The rates of en bloc resection, complete resection and curative resection in the EGCC group were 97.5%, 78.8% and 71.2%, respectively, significantly lower than those in the EGNCC group (99.8%, 94.5% and 90.4%, p = .010, <.001 and <.001). Among non-curative resected lesions, EGCC had more cases in both endoscopic curability (eCura) C-1 and C-2 groups than EGNCC (10.2% and 18.6% vs. 2.4% and 7.2%, p < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size (OR 2.393, 95% CI 1.388-4.126) and submucosal invasion (OR 11.498, 95% CI 3.759-35.175) were risk factors for non-curative resection in the EGCC group. For EGCC larger than 3 cm, none achieved curative resection, 86.7% were classified as eCura C-2 and 46.7% exhibited deep submucosal infiltration.

CONCLUSIONS

The curative resection rate of ESD for EGCC was lower than that for EGNCC. ESD for EGCC larger than 3 cm should be cautiously considered.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

Training in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States: The Current Paradigm

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training in Japan is pursued through a designated master-apprentice, organ-based stepwise training model. However, applying a similar program to the United States is not a practical strategy due to the significant differences in the training system and disease prevalence. To incorporate the ESD training into the current advanced endoscopy fellowship program, the use of recently developed techniques and technologies to improve the efficiency of ESD is ideal. The ESD training program in the United States should be prevalence-based, with increased involvement of trainees depending on their objectively assessed competency levels.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Stomach and Duodenum: Techniques, Indications, and Outcomes

Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is established for management of early gastric cancer (EGC). Diagnosis of EGC relies on adequate endoscopic assessment involving lesion size, histopathology, presence of ulceration, and depth of invasion. Absolute indications for endoscopic resection of EGC are if patients are presumed to have a less than 1% risk of lymph node metasta endoscopic submucosal dissectionsis, and long-term outcomes are similar to those with surgical gastrectomy. Duodenal ESD is more technically difficult and requires expertise in ESD in other locations.

Minimally Invasive Endoscopic and Surgical Management of Rectal Neoplasia

Rectal cancer demonstrates a characteristic natural history in which benign rectal neoplasia precedes malignancy. The worldwide burden of rectal cancer is significant, with rectal cancer accounting for one-third of colorectal cancer cases annually. The importance of early detection and successful management is essential in decreasing its clinical burden. Minimally invasive treatment of rectal neoplasia has evolved over the past several decades, which has led to reduced local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes. The approach to diagnosis, staging, and selection of appropriate treatment modalities is a multidisciplinary effort combining interventional endoscopy, surgery, and radiology tools. This review examines the currently available minimally invasive endoscopic and surgical management options of rectal neoplasia.