BACKGROUND: Despite a high en bloc resection rate, its technical difficulty and risk of complications limit the widespread use of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). OBJECTIVE: To analyze outcomes after colorectal ESD and ESD with snaring (ESD-S), a simplified modification of ESD. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single, tertiary-care, referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: ESD was performed on 163 lesions in 162 patients and ESD-S on 74 lesions in 71 patients. All lesions were nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms of 15 mm or larger. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed procedure-related variables such as en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complications. Histopathologic results were reviewed. Follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: The en bloc resection rate was higher for ESD than for ESD-S (87% vs 64%, P < .01). The histologically complete resection rate was also higher for ESD. However, both rates for resection of lesions of <20 mm were not different between ESD and ESD-S groups. The rates of perforation and bleeding were similar for both groups. Submucosal cancers were present in 21% and 31% of the ESD and ESD-S groups, respectively. One patient from each group developed a local adenoma recurrence. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Both ESD and ESD-S were safe and effective for resection of colorectal neoplasms. The higher en bloc resection rate for ESD suggests that it should be the first option for resection of suspected superficial submucosal cancers in the colorectum. ESD-S can be a good alternative to ESD for en bloc resection of colorectal lesions of <20 mm.
BACKGROUND: Despite a high en bloc resection rate, its technical difficulty and risk of complications limit the widespread use of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). OBJECTIVE: To analyze outcomes after colorectal ESD and ESD with snaring (ESD-S), a simplified modification of ESD. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: A single, tertiary-care, referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: ESD was performed on 163 lesions in 162 patients and ESD-S on 74 lesions in 71 patients. All lesions were nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms of 15 mm or larger. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed procedure-related variables such as en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complications. Histopathologic results were reviewed. Follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: The en bloc resection rate was higher for ESD than for ESD-S (87% vs 64%, P < .01). The histologically complete resection rate was also higher for ESD. However, both rates for resection of lesions of <20 mm were not different between ESD and ESD-S groups. The rates of perforation and bleeding were similar for both groups. Submucosal cancers were present in 21% and 31% of the ESD and ESD-S groups, respectively. One patient from each group developed a local adenoma recurrence. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Both ESD and ESD-S were safe and effective for resection of colorectal neoplasms. The higher en bloc resection rate for ESD suggests that it should be the first option for resection of suspected superficial submucosal cancers in the colorectum. ESD-S can be a good alternative to ESD for en bloc resection of colorectal lesions of <20 mm.