Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as a salvage option for difficult colorectal conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

When total submucosal dissection is difficult to achieve during conventional colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD), the lesion can be resected by final snaring through salvage hybrid ESD (SH-ESD). This study aimed to examine the outcomes of SH-ESD and identify its indications that could achieve en bloc resection.

METHODS

We recruited 1039 consecutive patients with colorectal lesions that underwent ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. C-ESD was attempted thoroughly in 924 lesions (C-ESD group, including 9 lesions in which ESD was discontinued), and SH-ESD was performed owing to some difficulties in 115 lesions (SH-ESD group). Risk factors for incomplete resection by SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation were evaluated using multivariate analysis. The outcomes were compared between cases with remaining undissected submucosa of < 20 mm in diameter in the SH-ESD and C-ESD groups, using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis revealed that a procedure time > 80 min and remaining undissected submucosa ≥ 20 mm in diameter were significant risk factors for incomplete resection after SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation. By propensity score matching analysis, procedure time was significantly shorter in the SH-ESD group with remaining undissected submucosa < 20 mm in diameter than in the C-ESD group (71 min vs. 90 min, p = 0.0053), although no significant difference was found in the en bloc resection rate (94% vs. 87%, p = 0.0914).

CONCLUSION

SH-ESD can be an alternative surgical method when conventional ESD is difficult to continue in cases in which the remaining undissected submucosa is < 20 mm in diameter.

Significance of rescue hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult colorectal cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), in which an incision is made around a lesion and snaring is performed after submucosal dissection, has some advantages in colorectal surgery, including shorter procedure time and preventing perforation. However, its value for rescue resection in difficult colorectal ESD cases remains unclear. This study evaluated the utility of rescue hybrid ESD (RH-ESD).

METHODS

We divided 364 colorectal ESD procedures into the conventional ESD group (C-ESD, n=260), scheduled hybrid ESD group (SH-ESD, n=69), and RH-ESD group (n=35) and compared their clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Resection time was significantly shorter in the following order: RH-ESD (149 [90-197] minutes) >C-ESD (90 [60-140] minutes) >SH-ESD (52 [29-80] minutes). The en bloc resection rate increased significantly in the following order: RH-ESD (48.6%), SH-ESD (78.3%), and C-ESD (97.7%). An analysis of factors related to piecemeal resection of RH-ESD revealed that the submucosal dissection rate was significantly lower in the piecemeal resection group (25% [20%-30%]) than in the en bloc resection group (40% [20%-60%]).

CONCLUSION

RH-ESD was ineffective in terms of curative resection because of the low en bloc resection rate, but was useful for avoiding surgery.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Effective, safe and efficient porcine model of Forrest Ib bleeding gastric and colonic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Developing effective gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding animal models is necessary to advance endoscopic hemostasis methods and train endoscopists on their use. Our aim, therefore, was to develop an effective and safe porcine GI bleeding model in the stomach and colon of large and small-sized oozing-type ulcers.

METHODS

Gastric and colonic bleeding ulcers were created using either a hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique or a cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C) technique in 14 pigs. Prior to ulcer creation, animals were treated with either oral apixaban or intravenous (IV) unfractionated heparin anticoagulation in combination with clopidogrel and aspirin. The primary outcome was the technical success of inducing oozing-type Forrest Ib bleeding ulcers. Secondary outcomes included ulcer diameter, number, creation time and the number of complications associated with each technique.

RESULTS

Using hybrid ESD and IV heparin anticoagulation, bleeding was observed in 21/23 (91.3%) gastric ulcers and 6/7 (85.7%) colonic ulcers created. The mean diameter and ulcer creation time were 2.3 ± 0.3 cm and 5.3 ± 0.5 min, respectively, for gastric ulcers and 2.2 ± 0.4 cm and 4.06 ± 0.6 min, respectively, for colonic ulcers. Using EMR-C and IV heparin anticoagulation, bleeding was observed in 14/15 (93.3%) gastric ulcers and 6/6 (100%) colonic ulcers created. The mean diameter and ulcer creation time were 0.8 ± 0.2 cm and 2.1 ± 0.5 min, respectively, for gastric ulcers and 0.7 ± 0.2 cm and 1.7 ± 0.3 min, respectively, for colonic ulcers. None of the ulcers created in animals anticoagulated with apixaban developed bleeding. None of the 14 pigs developed any complications.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of a porcine GI bleeding model utilizing IV heparin anticoagulation and either hybrid ESD or EMR-C techniques to create oozing-type bleeding ulcers in the stomach and colon with customizable size.

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.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Management of Colitis-Associated Neoplasia

This article reviews the latest data concerning the use of advanced therapeutic techniques for endoscopically treating colitis-associated neoplastic lesions and discusses factors associated with improved outcomes.

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.

Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection is first-line therapy in the management of superficial neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract, as well as an increasingly viable therapeutic alternative in the resection of selected small deep lesions throughout the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The mainstay of therapy has traditionally been endoscopic snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection. However, recent innovative advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have provided for the ability to resect large superficial lesions and selected subepithelial lesions in en bloc and margin-negative fashion. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art in advanced endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection.

The future of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer

Endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer is recommended when the risk of lymph node metastasis is negligible and should be performed through submucosal dissection due to well-established short- and long-term results. To overcome technical difficulties and decrease adverse events some techniques have been studied. This review outlines current strategies for improving patient selection and highlights innovative techniques that help minimize adverse events. Moreover, we discuss how to improve management after curative and noncurative resections.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Methods of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method (P-ESD), traction-assisted method (T-ESD), and hybrid method (H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3,002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than that of C-ESD, P-ESD, and T-ESD (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]; RR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]; RR = 8.28, 95% CI [2.50, 27.42]). Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter (MD = -21.83, 95% CI [-34.76, -8.90]; MD = -23.8, 95% CI [-32.55, -15.06]). Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than that of P-ESD (MD = -18.74, 95% CI [-31.93, -5.54]). The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than that of C-ESD (MD = 6.26, 95% CI [2.29, 10.23]).

CONCLUSION

P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly utilized to overcome the complexity of conventional ESD. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hybrid ESD for treatment of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included en bloc resection, procedure-associated complications, recurrence, and need for surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare effectiveness of conventional versus hybrid ESD.

RESULTS

16 studies (751 patients) were included with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) lesion size of 27.96 (10.55) mm. En bloc resection rate was 81.63 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 72.07 - 88.44; I2  = 80.89). Complications, recurrences, and need for surgery occurred in 7.74 % (95 %CI 4.78 - 12.31; I2  = 65.84), 4.52 % (95 %CI 1.40 - 13.65; I2  = 76.81), and 3.64 % (95 %CI 1.76 - 7.37; I2  = 15.52), respectively. Mean procedure duration was 48.83 (22.37) minutes. On subgroup analyses comparing outcomes for conventional (n = 1703) versus hybrid ESD (n = 497), procedure duration was significantly shorter for hybrid ESD (mean difference 18.45 minutes; P = 0.003), with lower complication rates (P = 0.04); however, hybrid ESD had lower en bloc resection rates (P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of recurrence or surgery (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While hybrid ESD was safe and effective for removal of colorectal lesions, with shorter procedure duration, fewer complications, and no difference in recurrence versus conventional ESD, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower en bloc resection rate.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Update on Best Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of en-bloc resection of neoplastic colorectal lesions which is less invasive compared to surgical resection. Lesion stratification, architecture recognition and estimation of depth of invasion are crucial for patient selection. Expert endoscopists have integrated a variety of classification systems including Paris, lateral spreading tumor (LST), narrow band imaging (NBI), international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) and Japanese NBI expert team (JNET) in their day-to-day practice to enhance lesion detection accuracy. Major societies recommend ESD for LST-non granular (NG), Kudo-VI type, large depressed and protruded colonic lesions with shallow submucosal invasion. Chance of submucosal invasion enhances with increased depth as well as tumor location and size. In comparison to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD has a lowerl recurrence rate and higher curative resection rate, making it superior for larger colonic lesions management. Major complications such as bleeding and perforation could be seen in up to 11% and 16% of patients, respectively. In major Western countries, performing ESD is challenging due to limited number of expert providers, lack of insurance coverage, and unique patient characteristics such as higher BMI and higher percentage of previously manipulated lesions.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: An alternative resection modality for large laterally spreading tumors in the cecum?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection for large, laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in the cecum is challenging. Here we report on the clinical outcomes of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in large cecal LSTs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with cecal LSTs ≥ 2 cm who underwent ESD or hybrid ESD procedures between January of 2008 and June of 2019. We compared the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes, including procedure time, the en bloc and complete resection rates, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 27 patients in the ESD group and 35 patients in the hybrid ESD group, respectively. Hybrid ESD was more used for lesions with submucosal fibrosis. No other significant differences were found in patient characteristics between the two groups. The hybrid ESD group had a significantly shorter procedure time compared with the ESD group (27.60 ± 17.21 vs. 52.63 ± 44.202 min, P = 0.001). The en bloc resection rate (77.1% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.677) and complete resection rate (71.4% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.359) of hybrid ESD were relatively lower than that of the ESD group in despite of no significant difference was found. The perforation and post-procedure bleeding rate (2.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.684) were similar between the two groups. One patient perforated during the ESD procedure, which was surgically treated. One patient in the hybrid ESD group experienced post-procedure bleeding, which was successfully treated with endoscopic hemostasis. Post-procedural fever and abdominal pain occurred in six patients in the ESD group and five patients in the hybrid ESD group. One patient in the ESD group experienced recurrence, which was endoscopically resected.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate that hybrid ESD may be an alternative resection strategy for large cecal LSTs with submucosal fibrosis.

Indications and outcomes of colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter 10-year study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a colorectal lesion resection procedure that includes both planned and salvage procedures. Previous colorectal hybrid ESD studies have involved single institutions or few operators over a short timeframe, and the size for indication has not been established. In this multicentre study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors that met the 30 mm lesion size criterion.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2018, colorectal hybrid ESD was performed for 172 lesions (diameter range, ≥ 20- < 30 mm) at Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between 56 and 116 lesions in planned and salvage groups, respectively. We also compared data between 2008 and 2013 (the first period) and 2014 and 2018 (the second period) to assess operator experience.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups (92.9% vs. 83.6%, respectively). Procedure time was shorter in the planned group (44.5 min) than in the salvage group (72.0 min, p < 0.01). The perforation rate was higher in the salvage group (21.6%) than in the planned group (0%, p < 0.01); however, the perforation rate during snaring in the salvage group was 1.8%. During the second period relative to the first period, we recorded a significantly higher complete en bloc resection rate (95.7% vs. 75.6%, respectively, p < 0.01) and experienced operator rate (75.5% vs. 53.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups during the second period (100% vs. 94.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Colorectal hybrid ESD, especially salvage hybrid ESD performed by experienced operators, is adoptable and safe for lesions with diameters ranging from ≥ 20 to < 30 mm.

ESD with double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform versus standard ESD for management of colon polyps

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with the double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (DEIP) is a novel technique for removal of complex colon polyps (> 2 cm) or those located in anatomically difficult positions. DEIP helps create a therapeutic zone with improved visualization and stability, facilitating polyp removal. We aimed to compare the outcomes of DEIP with the conventional cap-assisted ESD (standard ESD) technique for colon polyp resection, in particular, the ability to complete the ESD procedure without resorting to hybrid ESD or piecemeal resection. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort of all patients who underwent colon ESD in a single large tertiary referral center between September 2016 and October 2019. Information was collected on patient demographics and study outcomes including procedure time, rates of en bloc and curative resection, operative and postoperative complications. All patients were followed up for 1 month after the procedure. Results  111 patients were included in the study (DEIP 60, standard ESD 51). There was no statistically significant difference between mean procedures time (± SD) in the two groups, mean (81.9 ± 35.4 min standard vs. 96.4 ± 42.2 min in DEIP). Mean polyp size (± SD) was similar between the two groups (7.6 ± 6.0 cm ² vs. 6.2 ± 5.5 cm ² , P  = .2). There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates or operative and postoperative complications between the two techniques. Conclusion  Procedure time was similar using both techniques. However, DEIP enabled the entire procedure to be performed using the ESD technique without resorting to snare resection, which may affect the en bloc and curative resection rate. There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates between the two groups, probably due to the small sample size.

Reduction in the procedure time of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: a multi-center retrospective propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric neoplasms is still a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure. Hybrid ESD (H-ESD) involves circumferential incision with partial submucosal dissection combined with subsequent mucosal resection by snaring, wherein the newly developed device allows us to perform H-ESD using a single device. This study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of H-ESD compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for early gastric neoplasms.

METHODS

In this multi-center, retrospective study, using propensity score-matched analysis, we reviewed the charts of patients with early gastric neoplasms smaller than 20 mm treated with H-ESD or C-ESD at three hospitals between January 2017 and October 2018. The primary outcome was the procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were other factors, including the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, curative resection rate, and rate of adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 215 patients, 29 underwent H-ESD and 186 underwent C-ESD; 29 pairs were created by propensity score matching. In the H-ESD group, 82.8% of lesions met the absolute indication [mucosal lesions limited to 20-mm diameter, dominated by differentiated adenocarcinoma without ulcer (scar)] for endoscopic resection (ER). As a result, the procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD [20 (interquartile range, 12-27) min versus 40 (30-50) min; p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

H-ESD contributed to reduced procedure time. Therefore, H-ESD could be an alternative endoscopic treatment for gastric neoplasms when the lesion fulfils the absolute indication for ER.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.

Efficacy and Safety of Complete Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Neoplasia Using a Stepwise Endoscopic Protocol with SOUTEN, a Novel Multifunctional Snare

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A multifunctional snare SOUTEN has a sharp tip at the top of the snare loop that enables incision of the mucosa, dissection of the submucosal layer, and snaring of lesion. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of complete endoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasia using SOUTEN.

METHODS

We analyzed the rates of gross en bloc resection and complete resections of 108 consecutive tumors from 69 patients resected by precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (precutting), hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (hybrid), or conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (conventional) using SOUTEN.

RESULTS

Out of the 108 tumors, 50 were resected by precutting, 27 were resected by hybrid after attempting precutting, and the remaining 31 were resected by conventional after attempting precutting and hybrid resections. The median tumor sizes were 14.5 mm for precutting, 16.4 mm for hybrid, and 21.1 mm for conventional. The success rate of gross en bloc resection and histological complete resection were 100% and 94.0% for precutting, 96.4% and 96.4% for hybrid, and 100% and 100% for conventional method, respectively. No procedure-related complication occurred.

CONCLUSION

By using SOUTEN, precutting and hybrid were successfully performed on 10-30 mm tumors with a shorter procedure time than conventional without major complications.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive therapeutic procedure to remove larger polyps or early non-metastatic lesions. It has long been used in Asia, but is now fast growing in popularity in the West. There are multiple challenges faced by ESD practitioners. While the practice of ESD in gastric lesions is relatively well established, the oesophagus with its narrow lumen and challenging workspace, and the colon with its tortuous course and folds are more challenging frontiers. The nature of performing a procedure endoscopically means that conventional methods offer no mechanism for providing counter-traction while performing dissection, impeding visibility and increasing the rate of complications. There are a multitude of tools available to those performing ESD for the different stages of the procedure. This article reviews the accessories currently used in regular ESD practice including the knives used to cut and dissect lesions, the cap and hood devices used to improve visibility and safety, injection fluids to lift the submucosal plane, haemostatic devices, generators, and finally, emerging traction apparatus. There is some evidence behind the use of these tools, however, ESD remains the domain of a small number of practitioners and the practice relies heavily on expert experience. Evolution of the ESD toolbox will make the procedure more accessible to more endoscopists, which in turn will drive the development of a more substantial evidence base to evaluate efficacy and safety of the multitude of tools.

Role of interventional inflammatory bowel disease in the era of biologic therapy: a position statement from the Global Interventional IBD Group

Interventional (or therapeutic) inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) endoscopy has an expanding role in the treatment of disease and surgical adverse events. Endoscopic therapy has been explored and used in the management of strictures, fistulas/abscesses, colitis-associated neoplasia, postsurgical acute or chronic leaks, and obstructions. The endoscopic therapeutic modalities include balloon dilation, stricturotomy, stent placement, fistulotomy, fistula injection and clipping, sinusotomy, EMR, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. With a better understanding of the disease course of IBD, improved long-term impact of medical therapy, and advances in endoscopic technology, we can foresee interventional IBD becoming an integrated part of the multidisciplinary approach to patients with complex IBD.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting GI neoplasia of the colon (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As a result of previous manipulation or submucosal invasion, GI lesions referred for EMR frequently have flat areas of visible tissue that cannot be snared. Current methods for treating residual tissue may lead to incomplete eradication or not allow complete tissue sampling for histologic evaluation. Our aim is to describe dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR), a new technique combining circumferential ESD with EMR for removal of superficial non-lifting or residual "islands" with suspected submucosal involvement/fibrosis.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, lesions referred for EMR were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were identified where lifting and/or snaring of the lesion was incomplete and the DeSCAR technique was undertaken. Cases were reviewed for location, previous manipulation, rates of successful hybrid resection, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine lesions underwent DeSCAR because of non-lifting or residual "islands" of tissue. Fifty-two percent of the patients were male and 48% were female; average age was 66 years (standard deviation ±9.9 years). Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 10), right side of the colon (n = 12), left side of the colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 3). Average size was 31 mm (standard deviation ±20.6 mm). Previous manipulation had occurred in 28 of 29 cases (83% biopsy, 34% resection attempt, 52% tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 100%. There was one episode of delayed bleeding but no other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

DeSCAR is a feasible and safe alternative to argon plasma coagulation and avulsion for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual GI lesions, providing en bloc resection of tissue for histologic review. Further studies are needed to demonstrate long-term eradication and for comparison with other methods.

Randomized controlled trial comparing submucosal endoscopy with mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the esophagus and stomach: Animal study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In Western countries, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not prevailed as a result of training problems and a target patient population. We have previously reported a hybrid ESD technique, submucosal endoscopy with mucosal resection (SEMR), in which the submucosal dissection is carried out chiefly by blunt balloon dissection. We have also reported successful application in the porcine colon. In the present study, we compared the safety and efficacy of SEMR with ESD in the porcine esophagus and stomach.

METHODS

SEMR and ESD were carried out in eight domestic pigs under general anesthesia. Resection sites were marked by circumferential coagulation. After circumferential ESD knife mucosal incision, submucosal fluid cushion (SFC) was created. In the SEMR group, the balloon catheter was inserted deep into the SFC. The balloon was then inflated and pulled back toward the endoscope tip repeatedly, altering the direction, to disrupt the submucosa. Residual strands were cut with an IT-knife. En bloc resection rates, procedure times, complications and dissection difficulty scales (DDS) were recorded prospectively. DDS were rated using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Thirty-two resections (8 SEMR/8 ESD in the esophagus; 8 SEMR/8 ESD in the stomach) were done with no major adverse events. There was no statistical difference between the two techniques in either location in the above categories measured.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMR and traditional ESD are comparable techniques in safety and effectiveness when carried out in the esophagus and stomach. SEMR may serve as a more appealing technical option for endoscopists who are unable to sustain a traditional ESD practice volume.