Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Research Articles

Efficacy and Safety of Single Clip Traction Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colonic Neoplasms: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colonic neoplasms is a technically intricate procedure. Internal traction using a single clip has emerged as a promising supportive technique for colonic ESD. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of ESD with and without the aid of single-clip traction. This retrospective study encompassed 36 patients who underwent single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD and 66 who underwent the traditional method of colonic ESD at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University. We employed the propensity score-matching method to mitigate disparities in resected specimen size and tumor location. Post-matching, we comprehensively assessed treatment outcomes and incidence of adverse events between the two treatment groups (single clip traction-assisted ESD (scESD) and conventional ESD (cESD)). After propensity score matching, we observed 34 matched pairs. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups regarding the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and curative rate. However, the procedure duration was significantly shorter in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (20.00 [Interquatile Range (IQR)] (16.00-32.50) minutes vs 31.50 [IQR] (17.00-54.00) minutes, p = 0.0474). Furthermore, there was a significant increase in dissection speed in the single clip traction-assisted ESD group compared to the conventional ESD group (0.29 [IQR] (0.20-0.45) mm2/min vs 0.19 [IQR] (0.11-0.35) mm2/min, p = 0.0015). All lesions were resected in a single piece. Among the propensity-score-matched patients, only those treated with single clip traction-assisted ESD exhibited faster dissection speeds (p = 0.015). Furthermore, there were no substantial differences in adverse events such as intraoperative perforation, delayed perforation, or delayed bleeding. Our findings suggest that single clip traction-assisted colonic ESD is preferable to traditional colonic ESD, owing to its shorter procedure duration and faster dissection speed.

Conventional versus rubber band traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study (with video).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of gastrointestinal tumors, including rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs). However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted ESD for the treatment of small rectal lesions are still debated. We conducted a study to compare the efficacy and safety of rubber band traction-assisted ESD (RBT-ESD) to conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with r-NET treated with ESD between October 2021 and October 2023. Our study assessed differences between the groups in the complete resection rate of lesions, muscular layer injury, surgical complications, operation time, resection speed, time to liquid diet, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, and recurrence rate. A total of 119 patients with r-NETs participated in this study (RBT-ESD group, n = 27; C-ESD group, n = 92). The operation time in RBT-ESD group was shorter than in C-ESD group, but the difference was not statistically significant (16.0min [9.0-22.0min] vs. 18.0min [13.3-27.0min], P = 0.056). However, the resection speed was significantly faster in the RBT-ESD group (6.7 vs. 4.1 mm2/min, P = 0.005). Furthermore, the RBT-ESD group showed significantly less muscular layer injury (P = 0.047) and faster diet recovery (P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in the complete resection rate, surgical complications, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, or recurrence rate between the two groups. For r-NETs of < 2cm in size, the RBT method did not significantly shorten the operation time but resulted in faster resection speed, less muscular layer injury, and earlier postoperative recovery to a liquid diet.

Efficacy of robot arm-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection in live porcine stomach (with video)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging and requires a high level of skill. However, there is no effective method of exposing the submucosal plane during dissection. In this study, the efficacy of robot arm-assisted tissue traction for gastric ESD was evaluated using an in vivo porcine model. The stomach of each pig was divided into eight locations. In the conventional ESD (C-ESD) group, one ESD was performed at each location (N = 8). In the robot arm-assisted ESD (R-ESD) group, two ESDs were performed at each location (N = 16). The primary endpoint was the submucosal dissection speed (mm2/s). The robot arm could apply tissue traction in the desired direction and successfully expose the submucosal plane during submucosal dissection in all lesion locations. The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the R-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (p = 0.005). The blind dissection rate was significantly lower in the R-ESD group (P = 0.000). The robotic arm-assisted traction in ESD enabled a significant improvement in submucosal dissection speed, blind dissection rate which suggests the potential for making ESD easier and enhancing procedural efficiency and safety.

Comparing underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large laterally spreading tumor: a randomized controlled trial (with video)

Background and AimsColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging despite its usefulness. Underwater ESD (UESD) provides better traction and a clearer view of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (CESD). This study compared the efficiency of UESD and CESD for large (20–50 mm) laterally spreading tumor (LST). MethodsPreplanned sample size was calculated from our previous experience. As a results, 28 patients were required to UESD group or CESD group, respectively. The primary outcome was total procedure time while the secondary outcome was dissection speed. ResultsFifty-six patients were enrolled and a total of 28 patients were assigned to each group. The mean size of LST was 31.6 mm and 31.3 mm in the UESD and CESD group, respectively. Fibrosis was observed in 67.9% and 60.7% patients in the UESD and CESD group. Total procedure time (mean [SD]) for the UESD group was significantly shorter than that for the CESD group, respectively (49.5 minutes [20.3] vs 75.7 minutes [36.1]; mean difference, -26.2 minutes; 95% CI, -42.0 to -10.5). Dissection speed of the UESD group was significantly faster than that of the CESD group (21.9 mm2/min [6.9] vs 15.2 mm2/min [7.3]; mean difference, 6.7 mm2/minutes; 95% CI, 2.8–10.4). There was no difference between groups in the R0 resection rate or en bloc resection rate. No perforations were observed in either group. ConclusionsUESD was superior to CESD in total procedure time and dissection speed. UESD can be recommended as the preferred method for the resection of large LST.

Tunneled or Pocket Creation Method Versus Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Tunneled endoscopic submucosal dissection (T-ESD) and pocket creation-method ESD (PCM-ESD) are considered to have technical advantages over conventional ESD (C-ESD). However, data comparing these techniques for ESD of gastric lesions are limited. PubMed and Cochrane databases were reviewed for relevant studies from their inceptions to October 31, 2023. Studies comparing T-ESD or PCM-ESD (T/PCM-ESD) with C-ESD for gastric lesions were included. The primary outcomes were dissection speed and en-bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, recurrence, perforation, and post-ESD bleeding. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Eight observational studies (359 patients with T/PCM-ESD, 670 patients with C-ESD) were included. T/PCM-ESD was associated with a significantly faster dissection speed (mean difference, 4.42mm2/min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.05-6.79; I2= 79%). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of en-bloc resection (risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; I2= 0%), R0 resection (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07; I2= 0%), and recurrence (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.14-3.84; I2= 0%). Although T/PCM-ESD was associated with a significantly lower risk of perforation (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.80; I2= 0%), post-ESD bleeding rates were not significantly different. T/PCM-ESD facilitates faster and safer gastric ESD than C-ESD, with similar en-bloc resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rates. A future randomized controlled control trial is required.

Scissor-assisted vs. conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically complex procedure. The scissor knife mechanism may potentially provide easier and safer colorectal ESD. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scissor-assisted vs. conventional ESD for colorectal lesions. A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Lilacs databases from January 1990 to November 2023 according to PRISMA guidelines. Fixed and random-effects models were used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB-2 tools. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. A total of five studies (three retrospective and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 1575 colorectal ESD) were selected. The intraoperative perforation rate was statistically lower (risk difference [RD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.04 to -0.01; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%) and the self-completion rate was statistically higher (RD 0.14; 95% CI 0.06, 0.23; P = 0.0006; I2 = 0%) in the scissor-assisted group compared with the conventional ESD group. There was no statistical difference in R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate, mean procedure time, or delayed bleeding rate between the groups. Scissor knife-assisted ESD is as effective as conventional knife-assisted ESD for colorectal lesions with lower intraoperative perforation rate and a higher self-completion rate.

Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BackgroundLow grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) are potential precancerous lesion of gastric neoplasms. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the first option for the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer (EGC). Traction is an effective method to improve efficiency, and reduce complications during ESD. In this study, we shared a useful traction method using the clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique (CSM-PLT) for precancerous lesion and EGC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients received ESD combined with CSM-PLT or conventional ESD from June 2018 to December 2021 in Shenzhen People’s hospital. The primary outcome was resection speed.ResultsForty-two patients were enrolled in ESD combined with CSM-PLT group and sixty-five patients in conventional ESD group respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable among two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate (97.6% vs. 98.5%, P = 1.000 and 97.6% vs. 96.9%, P = 1.000, respectively), operation costs (933.7 (644.1-1102.4) dollars vs. 814.7 (614.6-988.3) dollars, P = 0.107), and hospital stays (8.0 ± 3.1 days vs. 7.3 ± 3.2 days, P = 0.236). In addition, no significant difference was observed with respect to complications (P>0.05). However, the resection speed of ESD combined with CSM-PLT was faster than that of conventional ESD (11.3 (9.4–14.9) mm2/min vs. 8.0 (5.8–10.9) mm2/min, P < 0.001), particularly lesions located in anterior wall and lesser curvature. In addition, the association between ESD combined with CSM-PLT and resection speed was still supported after propensity matching scores (PMS).ConclusionsCSM-PLT can help to improve ESD efficiency without reducing the en bloc resection rate or increasing the incidence of complications.

Early Experience with EndoRobotic Submucosal Dissection (ERSD): Pathologic and Short-term Outcomes in the First 28 Patients.

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-port endorobotic submucosal dissection (ERSD) using the Da Vinci SP platform for the management of rectal neoplasms. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers a potential organ-sparing treatment for advanced colorectal neoplasms but demands high technical skill and a steep learning curve. Advances in semiflexible robotic platforms, such as the Da Vinci SP, promise to simplify this procedure, potentially offering improved outcomes for patients with benign rectal neoplasms. A retrospective analysis of 28 patients who underwent ERSD using the Da Vinci SP platform between 2020 and 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details, outcomes, and complications were reviewed. The primary endpoint was successful en-bloc resection. The cohort had a median age of 60.5 years and a median BMI of 28.2kg/m², predominantly male(67.8%) with ASA categories 2 or 3(82%). Lesions had a median size of 38mm and were located a median of 9cm from the anal verge. The median procedure time was 87.5 minutes. En-bloc resection was achieved in all cases(100%), with no intraoperative complications or mortality. One patient experienced urinary retention, and one had late bleeding requiring blood transfusion. Pathology outcomes included 46.4% tubulovillous adenomas, 21.4% adenocarcinomas, and high-grade dysplasia in 53.6% of patients. Single-port ERSD using the Da Vinci SP platform is safe and feasible for the management of colorectal neoplasia, ensuring a high rate of en-bloc resection. It potentially offers advantages over conventional ESD, including shorter dissection times, although further studies are necessary for a definitive comparison.

A Novel Retractable Robotic Device for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

: Appropriate tissue tension and clear visibility of the dissection area using traction are essential for effective and safe endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In this study, we developed a retractable robot-assisted traction device and evaluated its performance in colorectal ESD. : An experienced endoscopist performed ESD 18 times on an ex vivo porcine colon using the robot and 18 times using the conventional method. The outcome measures were procedure time, dissection speed, procedure-related adverse events, and blind dissection rate. : Thirty-six colonic lesions were resected from ex vivo porcine colon samples. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in robot-assisted ESD (RESD) than in conventional ESD (CESD) (20.1±4.1 minutes vs 34.3±8.3 minutes, p<0.05). The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the RESD group than in the CESD group (36.8±9.2 mm2/min vs 18.1±4.7 mm2/min, p<0.05). The blind dissection rate was also significantly lower in the RESD group (12.8%±3.4% vs 35.1%±3.9%, p<0.05). In an in vivo porcine feasibility study, the robotic device was attached to a colonoscope and successfully inserted into the proximal colon without damaging the colonic wall, and ESD was successfully performed. : The dissection speed and safety profile improved significantly with the retractable RESD. Thus, our robotic device has the potential to provide simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction during colonic ESD.

Randomised controlled, patient-blinded, multicentre, superiority trial to evaluate the efficacy of the line-attached sheath-type traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with superficial gastric neoplasms

IntroductionEndoTrac is a line-attached sheath-type traction device that enables us to control the direction and the force of traction during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The efficacy of EndoTrac for gastric...

Outcomes of repeated endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma on endoscopic resection scar.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be performed for superficial esophageal cancer. However, performing ESD for superficial esophageal cancer on a previous endoscopic resection scar may be difficult. We compared the outcomes between ESD for superficial esophageal cancers on previous endoscopic resection scar (group A) and that for naïve lesions (group B). The study included outcomes of ESD, cumulative incidence of local failure, and predictors of the occurrence of local failure in ESD patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The outcome variables evaluated were en bloc resection rates, procedure times, adverse events, and overall survival rates. Overall, 220 lesions were extracted (groups A and B: 23 and 197 lesions, respectively). In groups A and B, the complete resection rates were 60.9 and 92.9% (P < 0.001), and the mean procedure times were 79 and 68min (P = 0.15), respectively. The perforation rates in groups A and B were 4.3 and 1% (P = 0.28). The 1-year cumulative local failure rates were 22 and 1% (P < 0.001), respectively. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, superficial esophageal SCC on a previous endoscopic resection scar was a strong predictor of local failure (hazard ratio = 21.95 [3.99-120.80], P < 0.001). The 3-year overall survival rates in groups A and B were 95 and 93% (P = 0.99), respectively. Repeated ESD on scar is an option for treating superficial esophageal SCC with an acceptable rate of adverse events. Because of the low complete resection rate and high local failure compared with conventional ESD, strict endoscopic follow-up is required after repeated esophageal ESD.

Robot-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection significantly improves procedure time at challenging dissection locations.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for early malignant stomach lesions. However, this procedure is technically demanding and carries a high complication risk. The level of difficulty in performing ESD is influenced by the location of the lesion. In our study, we aimed to investigate and analyze the effectiveness of robot-assisted ESD for lesions situated in challenging locations within the stomach. We developed a gastric simulator that could be used to implement various gastric ESD locations. An EndoGel (Sunarrow, Tokyo, Japan) was attached to the simulator for the dissection procedures. Robot-assisted or conventional ESD was performed at challenging or easy locations by two ESD-trainee endoscopists. The procedure time was remarkably shorter for robotic ESD than conventional dissection at challenging locations (6.2 vs. 10.2min, P < 0.05), mainly due to faster dissection (220.3 vs. 101.9mm2/min, P < 0.05). The blind dissection rate was significantly lower with robotic ESD than with the conventional method (17.6 vs. 35.2%, P < 0.05) at challenging locations. The procedure time was significantly shortened when robot-assisted gastric ESD procedures were performed at challenging locations. Therefore, our robotic device provides simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction for endoscopic submucosal dissection at challenging locations, thereby reducing difficulty of the procedure.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with adaptive traction strategy: first prospective multicenter study (with video)

Background and aimsTraction has become the reference strategy for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). One of its major limitations is that the force of traction decreases as dissection progresses. The ATRACT traction device uses a pulley system to increase traction during the procedure, making it easier and faster. A retrospective study of 54 cases showed interesting results in terms of efficacy and safety throughout the digestive tract.We sought to confirm these initial results with a prospective study of resections of colorectal lesions. MethodsIn this prospective multicenter study, 5 experienced operators from 3 different centers each performed 10 procedures using the ATRACT device consecutively for all conventional colorectal ESDs measuring between 4 and 10 cm in conventional locations (no recurrent lesions, appendicular, of the ileo-cecal valve, in contact with the pectinate line or measuring more than 2/3 of the circumference). ResultsBetween November 2022 and April 2023, 50 ESDs were performed in 49 patients. On average, the main diameter of the lesions was 66.6 mm, with a surface area of 3066 mm2. The mean operating time was 55.2 minutes, resulting in a mean resection speed of 61.4 mm2/min. En Bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% and 98% respectively. Resections were curative in 94% of cases. 4 perforations (8%) occurred, all of which were closed endoscopically without the need for surgery. 1 case of delayed hemorrhage (2%) was noted.To date, this is the series with the highest resection speeds in the literature for colorectal ESD. For comparison, Yamamoto et al. reported a speed of 23.5 mm2/min using the "pocket" strategy and Bordillon et al. reported a speed of 39.1 mm2/min using the double-clip traction technique. These results need to be confirmed in larger studies, and in non-expert centers. ConclusionsThis prospective evaluation confirms the efficacy and safety of the adaptive traction strategy with the ATRACT device for colorectal ESD with high resection speed.

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.

Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

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. 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. Six RCTs with a total of 566 patients (C-ESD n=284, T-ESD n=282) were included. The mean age was 67±10y 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). On meta-analysis, pooled procedure time was significantly faster with T-ESD compared with C-ESD. The clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Efficacy, safety, and advantages of magnetic anchor–guided endoscopic submucosal dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection: A retrospective paired cohort study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recommended as the first-line treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC). However, poor visualization of the operative field increases both the procedure time and the risk of complications, especially for large and difficult lesions. We introduced a novel technique, magnetic anchor-guided ESD (MAG-ESD) and compared it with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for the treatment of large EGCs in terms of efficacy, safety, and advantages. Patients with large EGCs who underwent MAG-ESD or C-ESD at the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from March 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The patients in the MAG-ESD cohort were matched to those in the C-ESD cohort using propensity score-based matching. The operation time, submucosal dissection time, complete resection status, magnetic anchor, adverse event rate, and tumor recurrence rate were evaluated. Twenty-two patients who underwent MAG-ESD were ultimately matched to those who underwent C-ESD. The median operation time of MAG-ESD and C-ESD was 43minutes (IQR, 35.2-49.5) and 50.5minutes (IQR, 42.0-76.0), respectively, among which the submucosal dissection time was 7.6minutes (IQR, 5.2-10.4) and 14.8minutes (IQR, 10.8-19.6), respectively. The operation time of MAG-ESD was shorter than that of C-ESD, especially the submucosal dissection time (P<.05). There was a lower incidence of adverse events associated with MAG-ESD (P<.05) when magnetic anchors were successfully placed and retrieved. MAG-ESD is feasible, effective, safe, and simple for the treatment of large EGCs at different sites and has a high anchor success rate, which could shorten the operation time and reduce the adverse event rate.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with versus without traction for pathologically staged T1B esophageal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

Positive vertical margins (VMs) are common after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and are associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Traction during ESD provides better exposure of the submucosa and may allow deeper dissection, potentially reducing the risk of positive VMs. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to compare the proportion of resections with positive VMs in ESD performed with versus without traction in pathologically staged T1b EC. Patients who underwent ESD revealing T1b EC (squamous or adenocarcinoma) at 10 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n= 9) and Brazil (n= 1) were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. ESD using either traction techniques (tunneling, pocket) or traction devices (clip line, traction wire) were classified as ESD with traction (Tr-ESD) and those without were classified as conventional ESD without traction. The primary outcome was a negative VM. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with negative VMs. A total of 166 patients with pathologically staged T1b EC underwent Tr-ESD (n= 63; 38%) or conventional ESD without traction (n= 103; 62%). Baseline factors were comparable between both groups. On multivariable analysis, Tr-ESD was found to be independently associated with negative VMs (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.91; P= .037) and R0 resection (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-6.23; P= .008). Tr-ESD seems to be associated with higher odds of negative VMs than ESD without traction for pathologically staged T1b EC, and future well-conducted prospective studies are warranted to establish the findings of the current study.

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

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. 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 < 20mm in diameter in the SH-ESD and C-ESD groups, using propensity score matching. Multivariate analysis revealed that a procedure time > 80min and remaining undissected submucosa ≥ 20mm 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 < 20mm in diameter than in the C-ESD group (71min vs. 90min, p = 0.0053), although no significant difference was found in the en bloc resection rate (94% vs. 87%, p = 0.0914). SH-ESD can be an alternative surgical method when conventional ESD is difficult to continue in cases in which the remaining undissected submucosa is < 20mm in diameter.

The Impact of Traction Methods on Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Efficacy for Gastric Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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). 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. 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 - 19.2min (95% CI - 27.75 to - 10.65, I2 = 12%, p < 0.0001) and - 7.35min (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%). 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.

Novel miniature transendoscopic telerobotic system for endoscopic submucosal dissection (with videos)

The lack of tissue traction and instrument dexterity to allow for adequate visualization and effective dissection were the main issues in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Robot-assisted systems may provide advantages. In this study we developed a novel transendoscopic telerobotic system and evaluated its performance in ESD. A miniature dual-arm robotic endoscopic assistant for minimally invasive surgery (DREAMS) was developed. The DREAMS system contained the current smallest robotic ESD instruments and was compatible with the commercially available dual-channel endoscope. After the system was established, a prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to validate the performance of the DREAMS-assisted ESD in terms of efficacy, safety, and workload by comparing it with the conventional technique. Two robotic instruments can achieve safe collaboration and provide sufficient visualization and efficient dissection during ESD. Forty ESDs in the stomach and esophagus of 8 pigs were completed by DREAMS-assisted ESD or conventional ESD. Submucosal dissection time was comparable between the 2 techniques, but DREAMS-assisted ESD demonstrated a significantly lower muscular injury rate (15% vs 50%, P= .018) and workload scores (22.30 vs 32.45, P< .001). In the subgroup analysis of esophageal ESD, DREAMS-assisted ESD showed significantly improved submucosal dissection time (6.45 vs 16.37 minutes, P= .002), muscular injury rate (25% vs 87.5%, P= .041), and workload (21.13 vs 40.63, P= .001). We developed a novel transendoscopic telerobotic system, named DREAMS. The safety profile and technical feasibility of ESD were significantly improved with the assistance of the DREAMS system, especially in the narrower esophageal lumen.