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

Colorectal 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 tumors (LSTs). Preplanned sample size was calculated from our previous experience. As a result, 28 patients were required for the UESD group and CESD group each. The primary outcome was total procedure time; the secondary outcome was dissection speed. Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and a total of 28 patients were assigned to each group. The mean LST size was 31.6 mm and 31.3 mm in the UESD and CESD groups, respectively. Fibrosis was observed in 67.9% and 60.7% of patients in the UESD and CESD groups. Total procedure time (mean ± standard deviation) for the UESD group was significantly shorter than that for the CESD group (49.5 ± 20.3 minutes vs 75.7 ± 36.1 minutes; mean difference, -26.2 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -42.0 to -10.5 minutes). Dissection speed of the UESD group was significantly faster than that of the CESD group (21.9 ± 6.9 mm2/min vs 15.2 ± 7.3 mm2/min; mean difference, 6.7 mm2/min; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 10.4 mm2/min). There was no difference between groups in the R0 resection rate or en bloc resection rate. No perforations were observed in either group. UESD was superior to CESD in total procedure time and dissection speed. UESD can be recommended as the preferred method for the resection of large LSTs.

Oh CK ，Chung HH ，Park JK ，Jung J ，Lee HY ，Kim YJ ，Kim JB ... -  《-》

Hybrid Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (Short-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection).

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which utilizes ESD knife along with snare-based resection, has been developed to overcome the technical complexity of conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcomes of H-ESD vs C-ESD for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥20 mm in size. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare H-ESD and C-ESD (Short-ESD trial). Patients with colorectal lesions between 20 and 50 mm in size were randomly assigned (1:1) to H-ESD or C-ESD. Primary outcome was procedure time/speed. Secondary outcomes were en bloc and complete (R0) resection rates and adverse event rates. A total of 89 patients (median age 63 years; 49.3% women) with the median polyp size of 30 mm underwent H-ESD (n = 40) and C-ESD (n = 49). The mean procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (41.1 ± 16.3 vs 54.3 ± 28.2 minutes; P = 0.007). The en bloc and R0 resection rates trended lower in the H-ESD vs C-ESD groups (77.5% vs 87.8%; P = 0.26% and 72.5% vs 79.6%; P = 0.46) without reaching statistical significance. Adverse event rate was similar between H-ESD and C-ESD (10% vs 8.2%; P = 1.00). Both H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for resection of large colorectal lesions. H-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time. H-ESD may represent a viable alternative to C-ESD, with the main advantage being easy applicability of a snare-based technique for colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further define the most suitable lesions for H-ESD, as to optimize efficiency and safety without compromising resection outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT NCT05347446.

Yang D ，Hasan MK ，Jawaid S ，Singh G ，Xiao Y ，Khalaf M ，Tomizawa Y ，Sharma NS ，Draganov PV ，Othman MO ... -  《-》

The efficacy and safety of per-nasal "GTS partner" assisted traction technique for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective single-center randomized clinical trial.

Since the snare traction-assisted ESD has been proven effective in treating flat lesions of the digestive tract, we modified and innovated the process and path of the traditional snare entering the digestive tract, aiming to investigate the efficacy and safety of using the per-nasal "GTS partner" assisted traction technology in gastric ESD. Patients with superficial gastric neoplasms were prospectively enrolled between November 2022 and May 2024 and randomly assigned to a conventional ESD (C-ESD) group or per-nasal "GTS partner" traction-assisted ESD (GTS-ESD) group. The primary outcomes were procedure time and dissection speed. The GTS-ESD and C-ESD groups included 40 patients each, and all the enrolled patients underwent the assigned treatment. The median procedure time in the GTS-ESD group was shorter than that in the C-ESD group (38 min vs. 48 min; P < 0.001), and the mean resection speed of the GTS-ESD group was faster than that of the C-ESD group (17.95 mm2/min vs. 11.86 mm2/min; P = 0.033). The median resection speed of lesions ≥ 20 mm was faster by GTS-ESD than by C-ESD (21.21 mm2/min vs. 12.83 mm2/min, P = 0.002). The en bloc resection rate (100% vs 100%) and R0 resection rate (100% vs. 97.5%) were similar between the two groups. There were no adverse events related to the per-nasal "GTS partner" assisted traction technology, and the traction technology had little interference with the endoscopist. The per-nasal "GTS partner" assisted traction technique can significantly shorten the gastric ESD procedure time and has the advantages of no damage to normal mucosa and adjustable traction direction, especially in the lower 1/3 of the stomach or lesions with a diameter of ≥ 20 mm.

Bi YZ ，Zhou LM ，Yan SJ ，Sun Y ，Zhang J ... -  《-》

Use of Snare Tip Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Endoluminal Management of Complex Colon Lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for advanced colon lesions is typically performed with specialized and costly endoscopic knives, potentially limiting accessibility and increasing procedural cost. Alternatively, the tip of an endoscopic snare, which is inexpensive and universally available, has demonstrated safe and efficient use in gastric lesions but lacks sufficient data for use in colon lesions. This study aimed to assess patient outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection of advanced colon lesions using the endoscopic snare tip. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database at a single tertiary care center was conducted. This study was conducted at a single tertiary care center. Adult patients with colon lesions that were not amenable to snare polypectomy were evaluated for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Snare tip resection was performed in select patients with lesions that were lifted adequately after submucosal injection. Patients who underwent hybrid resections with endoscopic mucosal dissection were excluded. En bloc resection rates, operative time, perioperative complications, and short-term outcomes, such as length of stay and lesion recurrence on follow-up colonoscopy, were evaluated. A total of 121 patients underwent snare tip endoscopic submucosal dissection, with a mean lesion size of 28.8 ± 9.84 mm. Most procedures were performed in the endoscopy suite (81.8%). The en bloc resection rate was 81.8%, with an average procedure time of 37.1 ± 29.8 minutes. There were 2 perforations (1.70%), one of which was managed operatively. Recurrence occurred in 6 patients (7.89%) at the time of follow-up colonoscopy. This study was retrospective, conducted by 2 skilled endoscopists with experience in endoscopic resection, and had short-term follow-up. Snare tip endoscopic submucosal dissection for advanced colon lesions demonstrates satisfactory short-term outcomes, suggesting its potential as a safe and accessible alternative to specialized knives, thereby possibly enhancing the adoption of endoscopic resection and improving patient accessibility. See Video Abstract . ANTECEDENTES:La disección submucosa endoscópica para lesiones avanzadas del colon generalmente se realiza con bisturíes endoscópicos especializados y costosos, lo que potencialmente limita la accesibilidad y aumenta el costo del procedimiento. Alternativamente, la punta de asa endoscópica, que es económica y está disponible universalmente, ha demostrado su uso seguro y eficiente en lesiones gástricas, pero carece de datos suficientes para su uso en lesiones de colon.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados de los pacientes después de la disección submucosa endoscópica de lesiones avanzadas del colon utilizando la punta del asa endoscópica.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente en un único centro de atención terciaria.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un único centro de atención terciaria.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos con lesiones de colon no susceptibles a polipectomía con asa, fueron evaluados para disección submucosa endoscópica. La resección con punta del asa se realizó en pacientes seleccionados con lesiones que se levantaron adecuadamente después de la inyección submucosa. Se excluyeron pacientes sometidos a resecciones híbridas con disección endoscópica de la mucosa.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las tasas de resección en bloque, tiempo operatorio, complicaciones perioperatorias y resultados a corto plazo, como la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la recurrencia de la lesión en la colonoscopia de seguimiento.RESULTADOS:Un total de 121 pacientes se sometieron a disección submucosa endoscópica con punta de asa, con un tamaño medio de lesión de 28,8 ± 9,84 mm. La mayoría de los procedimientos se realizaron en la sala de endoscopia (81,8%). La tasa de resección en bloque fue del 81,8% con un tiempo medio de procedimiento de 37,1 ± 29,8 min. Hubo dos perforaciones (1,70%), una de las cuales fue manejada quirúrgicamente. La recurrencia se observó en 6 pacientes (7,89%) durante la colonoscopia de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo, realizado por dos endoscopistas expertos con experiencia en resección endoscópica y el seguimiento de corto plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La disección submucosa endoscópica con punta de asa para lesiones avanzadas del colon demuestra resultados satisfactorios a corto plazo, lo que sugiere su potencial como una alternativa segura y accesible a los bisturíes especializados, lo que posiblemente mejore la adopción de la resección endoscópica y la accesibilidad del paciente. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Klingler MJ ，Erozkan K ，Alipouriani A ，Sommovilla J ，Gorgun E ... -  《-》

Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional and underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal neoplasms.

This study compared procedure-related outcomes of conventional and underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial colorectal neoplasms (SCNs).In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients with SCNs meeting the indications of the Japanese guidelines for ESD were randomly assigned to undergo conventional ESD (CESD) or underwater ESD (UESD) performed by an expert. The primary endpoint was dissection speed, defined as the specimen area per ESD time.We analyzed the data of 69 and 70 CESD and UESD cases, respectively; however, no significant differences were found in median dissection speed (17.4 and 19.9 mm2/min, respectively; P=0.19). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the suitable positional relationship between the lesion and the direction of gravity (nongravity side for CESD and gravity side for UESD) was independently and positively associated with dissection speed (P<0.001). En bloc resection was achieved without perforation in all cases. The incidence of post-ESD coagulation syndrome was not significantly different between the two groups (4.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively; P=0.68).UESD did not expedite dissection speed in the overall patient population. CESD and UESD may be complementary in the colorectum depending on the positional relationship between the lesion and the direction of gravity.

Nagata M ，Namiki M ，Fujikawa T ，Munakata H ... -  《-》