A novel approach for endoscopic submucosal dissection: scissors versus electricity

Prospective, randomized controlled study evaluating a double-balloon interventional endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; P < .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm2/h, P < .001). En bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, P = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (P < .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03846609.).

Is it time for Cold-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection? A feasibility study in an esophageal and colorectal live porcine model

Background and study aims  Use of cold endoscopic resection has increased due to excellent results with it and the ability to avoid electrosurgery related complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of cold-endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) in an in vivo porcine model. Patients and methods  C-ESD with circumferential incision and submucosal dissection with a predominantly cold technique was tested in the esophagus and colorectum. Incision and dissection were attempted with a cold technique with a biopsy forceps and an endoscopic Maryland dissector. Large vessels were pre-coagulated with the latter device. Different traction methods were applied. Results  Twelve dissections were performed: four esophageal, four colonic, and four rectal. Tunnel and pocket methods were applied successfully. Full C-ESD was possible in the colorectum. In the esophagus, an initial incision had to be done with electrocautery. No major bleeding occurred. Two perforations occurred in the colon, one was endoscopically treated. Conclusions  Full C-ESD is feasible in the colorectum, whereas a small hot incision is needed in the esophagus. However, in 50 % of the colonic cases, there were perforations caused by the biopsy forceps making the circumferential incision. Therefore, potential benefits of endoscopic resection without cautery would warrant futures studies in humans initially in esophagus and rectal locations.