Usefulness of the clip-flap method of endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized controlled trial

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.

Effects of traction methods in inexperienced endoscopists during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains a technical challenge, but traction devices show promise in making this procedure easier. However, the efficacy of traction techniques for colorectal ESD is still unknown for inexperienced endoscopists.

METHODS

We selected 400 patients who underwent colorectal ESD performed by four inexperienced endoscopists. Each patient in the traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) group was matched to a patient in the conventional ESD (C-ESD) group according to propensity scores.

RESULTS

One-to-one propensity score-matching analysis created 87 matched pairs. The self-completion rate in the TA-ESD group is significantly higher than that in the C-ESD group (100% [87/87] vs. 92% [80/87], p < 0.001). The median resection speed was significantly faster in the TA-ESD group than that in the C-ESD group (27 mm2/min [IQR, 19.5-47.3] vs.18 mm2/min [IQR, 13.5-33.8], p < 0.001) and the procedure time in the TA-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (33 min [IQR, 27-47] vs.53 min [IQR, 38-73], p < 0.001). However, the histologic complete resection rate was not significantly different between the TA-ESD and C-ESD groups (93.1% [6/87]) vs. 96.6% [3/87], p < 0.1888, respectively). The en bloc resection rate (96.6%) and perforation rate (4.6%) were equivalent between the TA-ESD group and the C-ESD group.

CONCLUSION

Traction techniques seem to improve resection speed and self-completion rate of colorectal ESD for inexperienced endoscopists.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Colon and Rectum: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Multimodal assessment of colorectal polyps is needed before decision-making for endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Assessment should include morphology according to Paris classification, magnification endoscopy for vascular pattern, and Kudo pit pattern analysis. ESD should be offered to patients that have Vi pit pattern, lateral spreading tumors (LST) granular multinodular and LST nongranular, lesions with fibrosis and those in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. A defined strategy for resection and planning is crucial for successful and efficient resection with a clear audit of outcomes aiming for a perforation and bleeding rate of less than 1% and R0 resection greater than 90%.

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.

Clinical benefit of the multibending endoscope for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ESD using a multibending endoscope to treat superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms.

METHODS

Patients with a single early gastric cancer who met the absolute or expanded indications for ESD according to the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo ESD using a conventional endoscope (C-ESD) or a multibending endoscope (M-ESD). Randomization was stratified by ESD operator experience and tumor location. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time, calculated as the time from the start of submucosal injection to complete removal of the tumor.

RESULTS

60 patients were analyzed (30 C-ESD, 30 M-ESD). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) ESD procedure times for M-ESD and C-ESD were 34.6 (SD 17.2) and 47.2 (SD 26.7) minutes, respectively (P = 0.03). Muscle layer damage occurred significantly less frequently with M-ESD (0.2 [SD 0.7] vs. 0.7 [SD 1.0]; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in procedure time or damage to muscle layers for tumors located in the lower third of the stomach.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with the multibending endoscope and fewer muscles were damaged. We recommend multibending endoscopy for ESD in the upper and middle thirds of the stomach to reduce procedure time and incidence of complications.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is a technically demanding procedure with prolonged procedure times and higher risk of adverse events. To overcome the procedural difficulty of ESD, several traction-assisted techniques (T-ESD) have been developed to improve visualization of the submucosa in hopes to facilitate safe and effective dissection. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis that compares short-term outcomes (30-day) of T-ESD to C-ESD.

METHODS

Clinical studies published up to April 2020 comparing the efficacy and safety of T-ESD and C-ESD were identified using electronic bibliographic searches. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Outcomes of interests were procedure time, rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and rates of adverse events. Fixed effect and random effect model were used to calculate pooled mean difference for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for categorical variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 2574 patients were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 2582 lesions (1292 T-ESD and 1290 C-ESD). Pooled estimates of T-ESD showed shorter procedure times (weighted mean difference = -20.35 min, 95% CI -27.51 to -13.19, p < 0.001), higher R0 resection rates (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.06, p = 0.004) and lower perforation rates (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01, p =  < 0.0001). No significant differences were seen in en bloc rates and bleeding risk between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Traction-assisted ESD results in shorter procedure time, improved R0 resection rates and lower risk of perforation as compared to conventional ESD.

Targeting Fluorescence Imaging of RGD-Modified Indocyanine Green Micelles on Gastric Cancer

Early diagnosis and complete resection of the tumor is an important way to improve the quality of life of patients with gastric cancer. In recent years, near-infrared (NIR) materials show great potential in fluorescence-based imaging of the tumors. To realize a satisfying intraoperative fluorescence tumor imaging, there are two pre-requirements. One is to obtain a stable agent with a relatively longer circulation time. The second is to make it good biocompatible and specific targeting to the tumor. Here, we developed an RGD-modified Distearyl acylphosphatidyl ethanolamine-polyethylene glycol micelle (DSPE-PEG-RGD) to encapsulate indocyanine green (ICG) for targeting fluorescence imaging of gastric cancer, aimed at realizing tumor-targeted accumulation and NIR imaging. ¹H NMR spectroscopy confirmed its molecular structure. The characteristics and stability results indicated that the DSPE-PEG-RGD@ICG had a relatively uniform size of <200 nm and longer-term fluorescence stability. RGD peptides had a high affinity to integrin α_vβ₃ and the specific targeting effect on SGC7901 was assessed by confocal microscopy in vitro. Additionally, the results of cytotoxicity and blood compatibility in vitro were consistent with the acute toxicity test in vivo, which revealed good biocompatibility. The biodistribution and tumor targeting image of DSPE-PEG-RGD@ICG were observed by an imaging system in tumor-bearing mice. DSPE-PEG-RGD@ICG demonstrated an improved accumulation in tumors and longer circulation time when compared with free ICG or DSPE-PEG@ICG. In all, DSPE-PEG-RGD@ICG demonstrated ideal properties for tumor target imaging, thus, providing a promising way for the detection and accurate resection of gastric cancer.

How does lesion size affect the pooled effect of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection on procedure time? A meta-regression

The purpose of this letter was to explore how lesion size affects the pooled effect of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection on procedure time. Our meta-regression showed that lesion size negatively associated with the effect of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection on procedure time (estimate point = − 1.02; 95% confidence interval, from − 1.58 to − 0.46). We also confirmed this result in different statistical models including fixed effect regression and two mixed effects regression models.

Short-term outcomes of traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Background

In recent years, some traction-assisted approaches have been introduced to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures by reducing the procedure time and risks related to the procedure. However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (T-ESD) are still being debated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of T-ESD for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library up to March 31, 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing T-ESD and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. The main endpoints are en bloc resection, complete resection, procedure time, perforation, and delayed bleeding. Pooled risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio (OR), and mean difference (MD) were calculated to compare T-ESD and C-ESD. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018108135.

Results

A total of 7 RCTs with 1007 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the T-ESD and C-ESD groups in the pooled estimate of en bloc resection, complete resection, and delayed bleeding (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.99, 1.01, I² = 0%, P = 0.66; RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.98, 1.03, I² = 0%, P = 0.81; OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.48, 1.86, I² = 19%, P = 0.87,respectively). The pooled estimate indicated that the procedure time was significantly shorter in the T-ESD group (MD = − 16.19, 95% CI − 29.24, − 3.13, I² = 87%, P = 0.02) than in the C-ESD group. Compared to C-ESD, T-ESD was associated with lower incidence of perforation (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11, 0.91, I² = 0%, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

T-ESD is a safe and effective treatment option with a low perforation rate and shorter procedure time than C-ESD for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Future multi-center (including European populations), randomized controlled trials of larger sample size and long-term outcomes of T-ESD are required.