Multiloop method for traction during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sudo G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6317950 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7806497 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10099846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically demanding, and the traction offered by gravity, cap, or clip-with-line during conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection remains unsatisfactory. Robotic systems are still under development and are expensive. We proposed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with strong and adjustable traction offered by snaring the lesion with additional scope. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the novel double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study that reviewed double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection, and size, location, morphology, and pathology between groups were compared. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a referral endoscopy center in a local hospital. PATIENTS: This study included patients with colorectal lesions receiving double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection and matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pathological completeness, procedure time, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifteen double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures, with 11 lesions located in the proximal colon with a median size of 40 mm, were performed. The median procedure time of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection was 32.45 (interquartile range, 16.03–38.20) minutes. The time required for second scope insertion was 2.57 (interquartile range, 0.95–6.75) minutes; for snaring, 3.03 (interquartile range, 2.12–6.62) minutes; and for actual endoscopic submucosal dissection, 28.23 (interquartile range, 7.90–37.00) minutes. All lesions were resected completely. No major complication was encountered. The procedure time was significantly shorter than that of 14 matched conventional endoscopic submucosal dissections (54.61 [interquartile range, 33.11–97.25] min; p = 0.021). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center, single-operator, retrospective case-controlled study with limited cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the feasibility of double-scope endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare-based traction to shorten procedure time and to simplify endoscopic submucosal dissection. Additional trials are required.
| S-EPMC9172887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Patient with a history of gastric ectopic pancreas and epigastric pain. We illustrate the endoscopic submucosal dissection of the ectopic pancreas using a new traction device, the ProdiGi traction wire. Using this device, we were able to resect the lesion en bloc with no adverse events.
| S-EPMC8645833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection is challenging because of severe fibrosis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (TD) with that of conventional ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 72 patients with residual or recurrent colorectal lesions resected using ESD. Overall, 31 and 41 lesions were resected using PCM with TD and conventional ESD methods, respectively. We compared patient background and treatment outcomes between the PCM with TD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. The primary endpoints were en bloc resection and R0 resection rates. The secondary endpoints were the dissection speed and incidence of adverse events.ResultsEn bloc resection was feasible in all cases with PCM with TD, but failed in 22% of cases of conventional ESD. The R0 resection rates for PCM with TD and conventional ESD were 97% and 66%, respectively. Dissection was significantly faster in the PCM with TD group (13.0 vs. 7.9 mm2/min). Perforation and postoperative bleeding were observed in one patient in each group.ConclusionPCM with TD is an effective method for treating residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection.
| S-EPMC9539301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough several methods to create an effective counter traction for safer endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been reported, these methods do not overcome problems regarding delivery and ease of use. This randomized prospective study assessed the usefulness of ring-shaped thread counter traction, which not only allowed the safer colorectal ESD but also the easiest and lower cost counter traction without any special devices.MethodsForty-five patients diagnosed with colorectal lateral spreading tumors over 20 mm were allocated to the conventional ESD group (CE) (n = 22) and the ring-shaped thread counter traction ESD group (RE) (n = 21). The ring-shaped thread was hooked and lifted up to the contralateral mucosa with a hemoclip. The primary outcome was the dissected area per minute during ESD (cm2/min) (UMIN000020160).ResultsThere were significant differences in the dissection time (min), with 130.0 (56.0-240.0) versus 80 (35.0-130.0) min for the CE and RE groups, respectively (P = 0.001). For the dissected areas per minute (cm2/min), there was a significant difference, with 0.125 (0.1-0.18) versus 0.235 (0.16-0.36) min (P = 0.003) for the CE and RE groups, respectively. There were 1 cases of perforation during ESD in the CE compared to 0 for the RE, and this was no significantly different (P = 0.31). The procedure time of producing and setting the ring-shaped thread counter traction was approximately 1.80 (0.80-3.30) min only.ConclusionsThe ring-shaped thread counter traction is simple, effective, lower cost and does not require special devices to obtain repeated counter traction.
| S-EPMC5487838 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7125398 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7730864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Video presentation of traction wire endoscopic submucosal dissection: tips and techniques from 4 institutions.
| S-EPMC8755644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established method for the treatment of early-stage gastrointestinal neoplasms. Adequate submucosal exposure is one of the most significant factors related to an effective and safe dissection. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effcacy and safety of various methods that assist traction during ESD of precancerous and earlystage neoplastic lesions of the gastrointestinal tract. We performed an electronic search of the MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for relevant studies published up to May 2019. Trials exclusively recruiting patients undergoing ESD for superficial gastrointestinal cancer were considered eligible for inclusion. Thirty-three articles including 3,134 patients met the inclusion criteria. The studies evaluated different approaches for widening the endoscopic view, including magnetic anchor-guided ESD (3 studies), use of a second endoscope (5 studies), clip-involving technique (21 studies), and miscellaneous methods (4 studies). Among them, only 6 were randomized controlled trials evaluating different approaches. Overall, the implementation of methods that assist traction during ESD significantly improved the operating time and R0 resection rate and decreased the rate of complications (bleeding and perforation). Interventions that assist traction seem effcacious in improving tissue traction, thus facilitating ESD performance.
| S-EPMC7280854 | biostudies-literature