Project description:BackgroundThe impact of traction direction in traction-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been adequately investigated. A clip with line (CWL) is a classical single-directional traction device. In contrast, a spring and loop with clip (SLC; S-O clip) is a newly developed multidirectional traction device.AimsTo investigate the impact of traction direction in gastric ESD by comparing the procedure-related outcomes of CWL-assisted ESD (CWL-ESD) and SLC-assisted ESD (SLC-ESD).MethodsWe retrospectively examined 140 patients with superficial gastric neoplasms who underwent SLC-ESD or CWL-ESD by a single ESD expert during November 2017-September 2020. The traction direction was classified based on the endoscopic finding in the following five categories: proximal, diagonally proximal, vertical, diagonally distal, and distal. In SLC-ESD, we set vertical traction, using the multidirectional traction function. Propensity score matching was conducted to compensate for the differences in lesion size, injection function of electrosurgical knife, ulcerative lesion, lesion location, and lesion position. The primary outcome was gastric ESD procedure time.ResultsPropensity score matching created 42 pairs. The median gastric ESD procedure time in the SLC-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the CWL-ESD group (28.3 min vs. 51.0 min, P = 0.022). All traction direction in the SLC-ESD group was vertical, while only 16.7% in the CWL-ESD group. En bloc resection was attained without perforation in all the patients in both groups.ConclusionOur findings suggest that SLC can provide vertical traction, which reduces the gastric ESD procedure time. Multidirectional traction devices can provide vertical traction in most cases of gastric ESD, unlike single-directional traction devices. Vertical traction may reduce the gastric ESD procedure time.
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.
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.
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.
Project description:BackgroundInsufficient countertraction and poor field of vision make endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) difficult. Internal traction method using a spring-and-loop with clip (SLC) allows sufficient traction in any direction and good field of vision. However, the attachment procedure is difficult and interference with the endoscope can occur in the retroflexed endoscopic position. We have developed a new use of SLC that simplifies the attachment procedure, eliminating interference with the endoscope. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of SLC for gastric ESD.MethodsWe retrospectively recruited 140 patients with gastric neoplasms who underwent ESD between November 2015 and October 2018 at our department. Among them, 51 patients treated using SLC-assisted ESD (SLC-ESD) and 89 patients treated using conventional ESD (C-ESD) were compared. Propensity score matching was performed to compensate for the differences in age, sex, lesion location, lesion position, specimen size, and ulcer findings. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time.ResultsPropensity score matching generated 51 matched pairs. The procedure time in the SLC-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (median [interquartile], 40.0 [27.0-81.5] minutes versus 69.0 [46.5-113.5] minutes, P = 0.008). The mean SLC attachment time was 2.08 min. There were no significant differences in complete en bloc resection rate between SLC-ESD and C-ESD groups (100% versus 96.1%, P = 0.495). There were not perforation cases in either group.ConclusionsSLC may offer an efficient method for gastric ESD, with a short attachment procedure time.
Project description:Video 1Traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the multiloop method for a previously tattooed laterally spreading tumor in the sigmoid colon.