Resection Of Large Colorectal Tumors Research Articles

Novel resection technique for large flat colorectal tumors: Clip-line-assisted underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) enables the resection of large colorectal tumors without local injection [1]. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often used for lesions larger than 20 mm. Historically, the rate of en bloc resection with U-EMR is lower than that with ESD [2]. We have devised clip-line-assisted U-EMR (CLU-EMR) for the resection of large tumors in the duodenum [3]. Herein, we present the successful resection of a large, flat 40-mm colorectal tumor using CLU-EMR.

Gas-alternating-water infusion method with/without internal traction assistance: a novel technique of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal tumors regardless of gravity direction.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using underwater technique has been developed to make colorectal ESD easier and safer. We have carried out a novel technique of colorectal ESD using gas-alternating-water infusion method for en-bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of colorectal ESD using the gas-alternating-water infusion method (GAW-ESD) with or without internal traction assistance depending on the level of exposure of the submucosal space, for large colorectal tumors (≥ 3 cm in size). All 8 patients were kept in the left lateral position during GAW-ESD as follows: (1) C-shaped mucosal incision. (2) The colorectal lumen was instilled with normal saline. Then the mucosal flap on the lower side of gravity was created with the help of buoyancy, followed by a V-shaped dissection both below and above the liquid surface, if necessary, assisted by internal traction using one-matching-many repositionable clips attached to one rubber band. (3) The post-ESD defect was closed underwater using repositionable clips. GAW-ESD was performed successfully in 8 patients, five without internal traction, three with internal traction. The en-bloc resection rate was 100%. No perforation occurred. Only 1 patient suffered from post-ESD bleeding, which was resolved by endoscopic clipping. GAW-ESD with/without internal traction is safe and effective for en-bloc resection of large colorectal tumors, with the advantages of quick gas/liquid switch, stable platform, fixed position, buoyancy effect, counteraction design, dissection acceleration, heat-sink effect, optical zoom effect, and downsizing effect.

How to Perform a High-Quality Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

How to Perform a High-Quality Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Mo1666 SURVEILLANCE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR SUPERFICIAL COLORECTAL TUMORS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is currently the most used technique for resection of large colorectal tumors. However, in large lesions EMR can often only be performed in a piecemeal fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a newer procedure that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en bloc resection rates and the very low recurrence rates. There are few reports on surveillance for patients with superficial colorectal tumors after ESD. The aim of this study is to evaluate surveillance after ESD for superficial colorectal tumors.

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

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which provides a higher en bloc resection rate than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), is considered to be a useful treatment option for large colorectal tumors. However, colorectal ESD is not widely used because of its technical difficulty, risk of complications and time required. To overcome these drawbacks, a simpler modified technique, ESD with snaring (hybrid ESD), has been developed. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal tumors. Between September 2008 and June 2016, ESD was carried out on 137 lesions and hybrid ESD on 27 lesions. All hybrid ESD cases were carried out as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases. We retrospectively investigated procedure time, and the rates of en bloc resection, perforation, bleeding, and local recurrence. In the hybrid ESD group, procedure time was shorter compared with the ESD group (108±59.5min vs 122±72.2min), but the en bloc resection rate was lower (66.7% vs 94.2%). However, there were no significant differences in procedure time, or in rates of en bloc resection, perforation and bleeding between the two groups. Local recurrence did not develop in any of our cases. Hybrid ESD as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases may be less effective for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. Indication for hybrid ESD may be limited to scheduled treatment from the outset and emergency cases with patients who present unstable vital signs during ESD.

Sa1586 Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Versus Optimized ESD With Snaring for Colorectal Tumors: a Prospective Randomized Study

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors, it is technically difficult and time consuming. ESD with snaring (ESD-S) may be an alternative for a rapid, easier procedure. However, retrospective studies reported a lower en bloc resection rate by ESD-S compared to ESD. We hypothesized optimization of ESD-S method may achieve a similar en bloc resection rate to ESD. Thus the purpose of this study is to prospectively compare ESD and optimized ESD-S for the resection of large colorectal tumors.

Preventing Complications at Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasia

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is efficient for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. The main complications during ESD comprise perforation and bleeding. For the standardization of ESD, it is most important to prevent these complications. Adopting a safe strategy of ESD, the use of hyaluronic acid for injection solution, and a suitable choice of knife are efficient in the prevention of perforation and bleeding. In this article, the authors describe a safe procedure of ESD to prevent complications, especially perforation and bleeding. This article is part of an expert video encyclopedia.

Clinical Impact of Endoscopic Devices for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows the en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. This requires a safe and effective ESD instrument. We compared colorectal ESD outcome using a bipolar or monopolar knife. Methods: We retrospectively studied 122 patients and 125 lesions in consecutive cases treated at our hospital. Patients were divided into a bipolar knife group (BKG; n = 45) and a monopolar knife group (MKG; n = 80). Comparisons were based on age and gender, tumor morphology, size and location, specimen size, procedure time, complications, and en bloc resection and curative resection rates. Results: There were no significant differences in age and gender, tumor morphology, size and location, or specimen size between the 2 groups. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the MKG than in the BKG (p < 0.05). The number of patients for whom the procedure time exceeded 120 min was significantly lower in the MKG than in the BKG (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this study, the monopolar knife was shown to be effective for colorectal ESD with a shorter procedure time.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection after Circumferential Mucosal Incision of Large Colorectal Tumors:Comparison With Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection is widely used for treating superficial colorectal carcinomas or premalignant colorectal tumors. Piecemeal resection and local recurrence are frequent with endoscopic mucosal resection for >20-mm-diameter tumors. Endoscopic submucosal dissection, which facilitates en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors, is useful for superficial colorectal tumors. In our hospital, endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential mucosal incision was used for colorectal tumorswith a diameter of 20–30 mm.

Risk Factors for Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection for Large Colorectal Tumors

Endoscopic resection techniques for treating colorectal tumors have advanced recently so that large colorectal tumors can now be treated endoscopically, although some patients experience delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection. Our aim was to clarify the risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors≥20 mm in diameter. Endoscopic submucosal dissection cases were excluded because of the low incidence of delayed bleeding after such procedures. This was a retrospective study using a prospectively completed database and patient medical records at a single, national cancer institution. A total of 403 colorectal endoscopic resections were performed on 375 consecutive patients. We analyzed the database and retrospectively assessed patient age, gender, hypertension and current use of anticoagulant (warfarin) or antiplatelet drugs (e.g. aspirin, ticlopidine) as well as tumor location, size, macroscopic type, histopathological findings, resection method and whether or not placement of prophylactic clips was performed during the endoscopic resection. The overall rate of delayed bleeding was 4.2% (17/403) and the median interval between endoscopic resection and the onset of delayed bleeding was 2 days (range, 1-14 days). All delayed bleeding cases were successfully controlled by endoscopic hemostasis involving clipping and/or electrocoagulation without the need for surgical interventions or blood transfusions. Based on our univariate analysis, the delayed bleeding rate was significantly higher in both males (P=0.04) and those patients without prophylactic clip placement (P=0.04). Our study results indicated that prophylactic clip placement may be an effective method for preventing delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection for large colorectal tumors.

CURRENT OPINIONS FOR ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR COLORECTAL TUMORS FROM OUR EXPERIENCES: INDICATIONS, TECHNICAL ASPECTS AND COMPLICATIONS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was first applied in the resection of large colorectal tumors 10 years ago. Frequent complications and technical difficulties were serious problems at first, but were gradually improved with experience. Here, we describe the indications, technical aspects and management of complications of ESD for colorectal tumors. In 2009, we introduce the use of small tip insulation-tipped diathermic (IT) knife. Features separating it from the IT knife and IT Knife2 are a smaller ceramic tip and small round disk at the root of the tip. During submucosal dissection, the small tip IT knife could dissect large pieces of tissue intact. This allows us to shorten the procedure time, particularly the submucosal dissection component. A total of 146 ESD for 140 patients were performed between January 2009 and July 2011. En bloc, and en bloc and R0 resection rates were 92.5% and 83.6%, respectively. Median procedural time was 48.5 min for 40.5 mm specimens. Perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 1.4%, respectively. We successfully performed ESD for colorectal tumors with a shortened procedure time while preserving quality and safety.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for large laterally spreading tumors involving the ileocecal valve and terminal ileum

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a challenging technique that enables en-bloc resection for large colorectal tumors, as laterally spreading tumors, particularly difficult, if the ileocecal valve and terminal ileum is involved. Herein, we report on one of 4 cases. The procedures, using a bipolar needle knife (B-Knife) to reduce the perforation risk and carbon dioxide instead of conventional air insufflation for patient comfort, achieved curative resections without any complications.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal tumors

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard procedure for treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be performed for resection of larger tumors, but has not been studied in the colorectum because of technical difficulties and complications. We compared outcomes and complications after resection of colorectal tumors larger than 20 mm diameter by ESD and EMR. We retrospectively studied 104 colorectal tumors treated with EMR from 1995 to 2004, and 85 colorectal tumors treated with ESD from 2005 to 2009. We compared the tumor location, shape, size, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and associated complications between the treatments. Tumors treated with ESD were larger (31.6 ± 9.0 vs. 25.5 ± 6.8 mm, P<0.001), incurred a longer procedure time (87.2 ± 49.7 vs. 29.4 ± 26.1 min, P<0.001), had a higher en bloc resection rate [71 of 85 tumors (83.5%) vs. 50 of 104 tumors (48.1%), P<0.001], and had a lower recurrence rate [one of 84 tumors (1.2%) vs. 16 of 104 tumors (15.4%); P=0.002] compared with EMR. Perforation occurred in five (5.9%) cases after ESD and in none after EMR (P=0.04). Postoperative bleeding occurred in two (2.4%) and three (2.9%) cases after ESD and EMR (P=not significant), respectively. Although 11 of 16 cases with recurrence after EMR were cured by additional endoscopic treatment, three cases required surgery. The only recurrence after ESD was in one patient who developed perforation after snare EMR. Despite its longer procedure time and higher perforation rate, ESD resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate and lower recurrence rate for larger colorectal tumors compared with EMR.

Safe procedure in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors focused on preventing complications

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is efficient for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. However, it has several technical difficulties, because the wall of the colon is thin and due to the winding nature of the colon. The main complications of ESD comprise postoperative perforation and hemorrhage, similar to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). In particular, the rate of perforation in ESD is higher than that in EMR. Perforation of the colon can cause fatal peritonitis. Endoscopic clipping is reported to be an efficient therapy for perforation. Most cases with perforation are treated conservatively without urgent surgical intervention. However, the rate of postoperative hemorrhage in ESD is similar to that in EMR. Endoscopic therapy including endoscopic clipping is performed and most of the cases are treated conservatively without blood transfusion. In blood examination, some degree of inflammation is detected after ESD. For the standardization of ESD, it is most important to decrease the rate of perforation. Adopting a safe strategy for ESD and a suitable choice of knife are both important ways of preventing perforation. Moreover, appropriate training and increasing experience can improve the endoscopic technique and can decrease the rate of perforation. In this review, we describe safe procedures in ESD to prevent complications, the complications of ESD and their management.

Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors in elderly people

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to be effective for the en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. Our study investigated whether ESD was suitable for elderly people with large colorectal tumors in terms of its invasiveness. We studied 119 colorectal tumors that were treated with ESD at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine or Nara City Hospital between 2006 and 2009. We classified each patient as either elderly, i.e., more than 75 years old, or non-elderly, i.e., less than 75 years old. Thirty-two of the cases were classified as elderly. Performance status, tumor size, operation time, rate of en bloc resection, histopathological diagnosis, complications, and hospital stay after ESD were analyzed retrospectively in both groups. In the elderly group, the average tumor size was 32.6 mm; the average operation time, 96 min; the rate of en bloc resection, 81.2%; the rate of perforation, 3.1%; and hospital stay after ESD, 5.1 days. Histopathological diagnosis for 16 tumors was adenoma; for 13, carcinoma with invasion into the mucosa; and for three, carcinoma with invasion into the submucosa. There were no statistical differences between the two groups in any of these data. The case with perforation was treated conservatively without urgent surgery in the elderly group. ESD for colorectal tumors resulted in favorable rates of en bloc resection in elderly people. Perforation occurred in elderly people, but these patients were cured with conservative treatment. ESD is a safe and minimally invasive treatment for elderly people with colorectal tumors.

Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has recently been applied to the treatment of superficial colorectal cancer. Clinical outcomes compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have not been determined so our aim was to compare the effectiveness of ESD with conventional EMR for colorectal tumors >or=20 mm. This was a retrospective case-controlled study performed at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan involving 373 colorectal tumors >or=20 mm determined histologically to be curative resections. Data acquisition was from a prospectively completed database. We evaluated histology, tumor size, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and associated complications for both the ESD and EMR groups. A total of 145 colorectal tumors were treated by ESD and another 228 were treated by EMR. ESD was associated with a longer procedure time (108 +/- 71 min/29 +/- 25 min; p < 0.0001), higher en bloc resection rate (84%/33%; p < 0.0001) and larger resected specimens (37 +/- 14 mm/28 +/- 8 mm; p = 0.0006), but involved a similar percentage of cancers (69%/66%; p = NS). There were three (2%) recurrences in the ESD group and 33 (14%) in the EMR group requiring additional EMR (p < 0.0001). The perforation rate was 6.2% (9) in the ESD group and 1.3% (3) in the EMR group (p = NS) with delayed bleeding occurring in 1.4% (2) and 3.1% (7) of the procedures (p = NS), respectively, as all complications were effectively treated endoscopically. Despite its longer procedure time and higher perforation rate, ESD resulted in higher en bloc resection and curative rates compared with EMR and all ESD perforations were successfully managed by conservative endoscopic treatment.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasia: Early Outcomes After 260 Cases

Purpose: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a recently introduced endoscopic technique, makes it possible to perform an en-bloc resection of a lesion regardless of its size. The aim of this study was to report early experiences with colorectal ESD performed in our hospital. Methods: Between October 2006 and December 2008, we performed an ESD for 260 consecutive cases of colorectal neoplasia in 255 patients. We evaluated the clinical outcomes, except for two failure cases of bowel perforation. Results: The mean resected tumor size was 24.2±9.8 (5-60) mm. Our overall endoscopic en-bloc resection rate was 93.0% (240/258). and the pathologically margin free rate was 91.5% (236/258). Perforation occurred in 7.7% (20/260) of the cases. In 17 patients, perforation was managed by endoscopic clipping without salvage surgery; the other three patients underwent a laparoscopic operation. Pathological examination showed an adenocarcinoma in 35.4% of the cases (92/260). We recommended additional radical surgery in 13 cases (submucosal invasion less than 1 mm with unfavorable pathology: 1 case; unknown depth of submucosal invasion: 1 case; submucosal invasion ≥1 mm: 9 cases; invasion to proper muscle: 2 cases). We were able to check the recurrence rate through colonoscopy for 125 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 8.0± 4.3 (3-21) mo, there were no recurrences. Conclusion: ESD was technically difficult, had a substantial risk of perforation, and needed a long procedure time. However, ESD enabled en-bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. As experience with the technique increases, ESD might gradually replace piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and radical colon resection in the treatment of colorectal tumors.

Low frequency of bacteremia after endoscopic resection for large colorectal tumors in spite of extensive submucosal exposure

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum: January 2009 - Volume 52 - Issue 1 - p 181-182 doi: 10.1097/01.dcr.0000345744.39873.b4

Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors

Local recurrence frequently occurs after endoscopic resection of large colorectal tumors. However, appropriate intervals for surveillance colonoscopy to assess local recurrence after endoscopic resection have not been clarified. The aim of the present study was to determine local recurrence rates following en-bloc and piecemeal endoscopic resection and establish appropriate surveillance colonoscopy intervals based on retrospective analysis of local recurrences. A total of 461 patients with 572 > or = 10-mm lesions underwent endoscopic resection and follow-up. We retrospectively compared local recurrence rates on lesion size, macroscopic type, and histological type after en-bloc resection (440 lesions) and piecemeal resection (132 lesions). Cumulative local recurrence rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Local recurrence occurred for 34 lesions (5.9%). Local recurrence rates for the en-bloc and piecemeal groups was 0.7% (3/440) and 23.5% (31/132), respectively (P < 0.001). The difference between the two groups was distinct in terms of lesion size, macroscopic type, and histological type. Of the 34 local recurrences, 32 were treated endoscopically and two cases required additional surgery. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative local recurrence rate of the en-bloc group was 0.24%, 0.49%, and 0.81%. Then the 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative local recurrence rate for the piecemeal group was 18.4%, 23.1%, and 30.7%. Local recurrence occurred more frequently after piecemeal resection than en-bloc resection. However, almost all cases of local recurrences could be cured by additional endoscopic resection, so piecemeal resection can be acceptable treatment.

Low frequency of bacteremia after an endoscopic resection for large colorectal tumors in spite of extensive submucosal exposure

During an EMR or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumors, an injection needle catheter is passed through the contaminated endoscopic channel and may directly inoculate bacteria into the blood stream during submucosal injection. In addition, extensively exposed submucosa, especially with an ESD, directly contacts colonic luminal bacteria after the procedure, which may increase the risk of bacteremia. However, the incidence of bacteremia after an EMR or ESD for colorectal tumors has not been reported. To evaluate the frequency of bacteremia associated with an EMR or ESD for colon lesions. A prospective study. A total of 40 patients who underwent a conventional EMR (n = 30), an EMR after circumferential pre-cutting (n = 3), or ESD (n = 7) for colorectal tumors. Blood cultures were obtained immediately before, 5 minutes after, and 30 minutes after the procedure. Patients were closely monitored for 24 hours after the procedure to detect the development of infectious complications. Blood cultures at baseline and 5 minutes after the procedure were all negative. However, a blood culture at 30 minutes after the procedure showed a positive result in 1 of 40 patients (2.5%). This patient underwent a conventional EMR, and the isolated microorganism was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, which might be regarded as a contaminant. None of the 40 patients showed any signs or symptoms associated with infection. The small sample size. An EMR, or even an ESD, for colon lesions may be considered a low-risk procedure for infectious complications that does not warrant prophylactic administration of antibiotics.