Clinical Endoscopy

  • 제55권6호
  • /
  • Pages.775-783
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-2400(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-2443(eISSN)
The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal neoplasia performed with a waterjet system-assisted knife: higher en-bloc resection rate than conventional technique

  • Paolo Cecinato (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia) ;
  • Matteo Lucarini (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia) ;
  • Francesco Azzolini (Unit of Digestive Endoscopy, Vita Salute San Raffaele University) ;
  • Mariachiara Campanale (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia) ;
  • Fabio Bassi (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia) ;
  • Annalisa Cippitelli (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia) ;
  • Romano Sassatelli (Unit of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia)
  • 투고 : 2022.03.12
  • 심사 : 2022.05.23
  • 발행 : 2022.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

초록

Background/Aims: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique. Methods: The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates. Results: Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD. Conclusions: WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2015;47:829-854. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1392882
  2. Kato M, Gromski M, Jung Y, et al. The learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental setting. Surg Endosc 2013;27:154-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2402-5
  3. Lee EJ, Lee JB, Lee SH, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: 1,000 colorectal ESD cases: one specialized institute's experiences. Surg Endosc 2013;27:31-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2403-4
  4. Abe S, Wu SYS, Ego M, et al. Efficacy of current traction techniques for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gut Liver 2020;14:673-684. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19266
  5. Bordillon P, Pioche M, Wallenhorst T, et al. Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021;94:333-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.01.036
  6. Neuhaus H, Wirths K, Schenk M, et al. Randomized controlled study of EMR versus endoscopic submucosal dissection with a water-jet hybrid-knife of esophageal lesions in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.042
  7. Yahagi N, Neuhaus H, Schumacher B, et al. Comparison of standard endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus an optimized ESD technique for the colon: an animal study. Endoscopy 2009;41:340-345. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1214473
  8. Zhou PH, Schumacher B, Yao LQ, et al. Conventional vs. waterjet-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2014;46:836-843. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1377580
  9. Zhou JQ, Tang XW, Ren YT, et al. Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection of upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors: a comparative study of hook knife vs hybrid knife. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:1843-1850. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i10.1843
  10. Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005;37:570-578. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-861352
  11. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02159-X
  12. Okamoto K, Muguruma N, Kagemoto K, et al. Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases. Dig Endosc 2017;29 Suppl 2:45-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12863
  13. Matsumoto A, Tanaka S, Oba S, et al. Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors accompanied by fibrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010;45:1329-1337. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2010.495416
  14. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:686-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068
  15. Zou J, Chai N, Linghu E, et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors. Surg Endosc 2021;35:4356-4362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07927-4
  16. Hayashi Y, Miura Y, Yamamoto H. Pocket-creation method for the safe, reliable, and efficient endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal lateral spreading tumors. Dig Endosc 2015;27:534-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12465
  17. Yoshii S, Akasaka T, Hayashi Y, et al. "Underwater" endoscopic submucosal dissection: a novel method for resection in saline with a bipolar needle knife for colorectal epithelial neoplasia. Surg Endosc 2018;32:5031-5036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6278-x
  18. Draganov PV, Aihara H, Karasik MS, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in North America: a large prospective multicenter study. Gastroenterology 2021;160:2317-2327. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.02.036
  19. Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T, et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024
  20. Daoud DC, Suter N, Durand M, et al. Comparing outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection between Eastern and Western countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:2518-2536. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i23.2518
  21. Imai K, Hotta K, Ito S, et al. A risk-prediction model for en bloc resection failure or perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal neoplasms. Dig Endosc 2020;32:932-939. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13619
  22. Takezawa T, Hayashi Y, Shinozaki S, et al. The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:1045-1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.022