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

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.

Effectiveness of water pressure method in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by novice endoscopists

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains challenging for novice endoscopists. Not only the underwater conditions but also active use of water pressure with the water pressure method (WPM) can help widen the submucosal layer. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of WPM in colorectal ESD, especially for novice endoscopists. Methods This study was ex vivo and enrolled three novices. Each endoscopist performed conventional ESD (C-ESD) and ESD with WPM (WPM-ESD) 10 times on an excised bovine rectum. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results Median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (54 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 42-67 vs. 45 minutes, IQR 34-55, P  = 0.035). Although no significant difference in the activation time of electrical surgical unit (ESU) during the procedure was noted, the interval time during the procedure at which the ESU was not activated was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group (52 minutes, IQR 40-65 vs. 42 minutes, IQR 32-52, P  = 0.030) than in the C-ESD group. Moreover, the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa was significantly shorter in the WPM-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (8.0 minutes, IQR 6.0-10 vs. 5.0 minutes, IQR 3.0-6.0, P  < 0.001). Conclusions The present study reveals that the WPM method significantly shortens the procedure times for novices in colorectal ESD, especially the interval time, which refers to the time spent creating the field of view, and the time required for the endoscope to enter the submucosa.

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.

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.