Endoscopic Submucosal Tunnel Dissection for Large Gastric Neoplastic Lesions: A Case-Matched Controlled Study. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2018;2018:1419369. [PMID: 29692806 PMCID: PMC5859796 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1419369]

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.

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.

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.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Endoscopic Submucosal Tunnel Dissection as a Novel Therapeutic Technique in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus

With the ameliorated resectability prowess of endoscopic techniques, a myriad of diseases previously treated by major ablative surgeries are now endoscopically curable. Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is a relatively new technique that has diversified endoscopic application. Although ESTD has frequently been used for the resection of esophageal neoplastic lesions, the clinical evidence pertaining to its efficacy in the treatment of circumferential Barrett’s esophagus remains sparse. In this study, we evaluated ESTD as a potential therapeutic technique in patients with Barrett’s esophagus-related high-grade dysplasia. The tunneling strategy helped achieve complete en bloc resection at an increased dissection speed, without any procedural complications. This article illustrates that ESTD can be a feasible, safe, and effective treatment for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Future research should aim to stratify the potential risks and complications associated with this optimization of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with superficial esophageal lesions.

Current status of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions

INTRODUCTION

With the widespread application of screening endoscopy and development of endoscopy-related instruments, more and more gastrointestinal cancers are detected in an early stage. Endoscopic resection is a preferred method for selected patients with superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard method for its ability to perform en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. ESD can be performed in a conventional or tunneling way, and the latter is termed endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD).

AREA COVERED

In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review on ESTD for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. We mainly focus on technical details, safety and efficacy of ESTD for esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform ESTD.

EXPERT OPINION

The best indication of ESTD is large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (circumferential extent > 1/3 and longitudinal extent > 3 cm). Although ESTD has shown promising primary results for superficial gastric and colorectal neoplastic lesions, it is technically difficult and should be attempted only in experienced hands. Post-treatment stricture is a major concern, and preventive measures are recommended for patients with high risk of post-ESTD stricture.

Consensus on the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique

With the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique (DETT), many diseases that previously would have been treated by surgery are now endoscopically curable by establishing a submucosal tunnel between the mucosa and muscularis propria (MP). Through the tunnel, endoscopic diagnosis or treatment is performed for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP, and even outside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. At present, the tunnel technique application range covers the following: (1) Treatment of lesions originating from the mucosal layer, e.g., endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for oesophageal large or circular early-stage cancer or precancerosis; (2) treatment of lesions from the MP layer, per-oral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection, etc.; and (3) diagnosis and treatment of lesions outside the GI tract, such as resection of lymph nodes and benign tumour excision in the mediastinum or abdominal cavity. With the increasing number of DETTs performed worldwide, endoscopic tunnel therapeutics, which is based on DETT, has been gradually developed and optimized. However, there is not yet an expert consensus on DETT to regulate its indications, contraindications, surgical procedure, and postoperative treatment. The International DETT Alliance signed up this consensus to standardize the procedures of DETT. In this consensus, we describe the definition, mechanism, and significance of DETT, prevention of infection and concepts of DETT-associated complications, methods to establish a submucosal tunnel, and application of DETT for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP and outside the GI tract (indications and contraindications, procedures, pre- and postoperative treatments, effectiveness, complications and treatments, and a comparison between DETT and other operations).

Safety and Efficacy of Nonanesthesiologist-Administrated Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Epithelial Tumors

Objective

There is no consensus regarding administration of propofol for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol-induced sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists during ESD of gastric cancer in patients with comorbidities classified according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status.

Methods

Five hundred and twenty-two patients who underwent ESD for gastric epithelial tumors under sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol between April 2011 and October 2017 at Dokkyo Medical University Hospital were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the ASA physical status classification. Hypotension, desaturation, and bradycardia were evaluated as the adverse events associated with propofol. The safety of sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol was measured as the primary outcome.

Results

The patients were classified according to the ASA physical status classification: 182 with no comorbidity (ASA 1), 273 with mild comorbidity (ASA 2), and 67 with severe comorbidity (ASA 3). The median age of the patients with ASA physical status of 2/3 was higher than the median age of those with ASA physical status of 1. There was no significant difference in tumor characteristics, total amount of propofol used, or ESD procedure time, among the 3 groups. Adverse events related to propofol in the 522 patients were as follows: hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) in 113 patients (21.6%), respiratory depression (SpO₂ < 90%) in 265 patients (50.8%), and bradycardia (pulse rate < 50 bpm) in 39 patients (7.47%). There was no significant difference in the incidences of adverse events among the 3 groups during induction, maintenance, or recovery. No severe adverse event was reported. ASA 3 patients had a significantly longer mean length of hospital stay (8 days for ASA 1, 9 days for ASA 2, and 9 days for ASA 3, P = 0.003). However, the difference did not appear to be clinically significant.

Conclusions

Sedation by nonanesthesiologist-administrated propofol during ESD is safe and effective, even for at-risk patients according to the ASA physical status classification.