H-J Richter-Schrag1, C Walker2, R Thimme2, A Fischer2. 1. Interdisziplinäre Gastrointestinale Endoskopie, Kliniken für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinik Freiburg, Sir Hans A. Krebs Strasse, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Deutschland. hans-juergen.schrag@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Interdisziplinäre Gastrointestinale Endoskopie, Kliniken für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinik Freiburg, Sir Hans A. Krebs Strasse, 79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic validity of a full-thickness resection is higher compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD). Whereas transanal endoscopic microsurgery techniques (TEM, TAMIS) are established therapeutic procedures in the rectum no established and safe minimally invasive or endoscopic procedure exists in the colon. AIM: In this study the novel endoscopic full thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco, Germany) was investigated concerning success rates with histologically proven full thickness resections, R0 status as well as patient and device safety for the rectum and colon. METHOD: In the period from November 2014 to June 2015 full thickness resections in the rectum and colon were performed with the FTRD in 20 patients. Data on technical success, R0 resection rate and histologically confirmed full thickness resections were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The following indications were treated in the rectum (n = 11) and colon (n = 9): T1 carcinoma (n = 6) and neuroendocrine tumors (n = 2), untreated and nonlifting adenomas (n = 3) and incomplete resection of adenomas with low and high grade dysplasia (n = 9). The technical success rate was 75 %, 3 technical failures made a conventional polypectomy necessary in 2 patients and in 1 patient an operative resection of the duplicated intestinal wall had to be performed. The median endoscopic follow-up time was 61.5 days (n = 10) and in 7 patients the clip had dislodged at the first follow-up. A thermal perforation in one case of conventional polypectomy gave rise to indications for a partial resection of the colon. In one patient the lesion in the cecum could be reached but not treated for technical reasons. The histological R0 rate was 80 %, whereas the full thickness resection rate was 60 % (85.7 % in the colon and 54.6 % in the rectum). In two patients with carcinoma and incomplete FTRD, surgical treatment was performed. The median size of the resection specimen was 5 cm(2) (range 1.6-12.9 cm(2)). CONCLUSION: The results show that FTRD is a safe and effective instrument for use in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Limitations of the FTRD system concerning full thickness resection are scarring, fibrosis and thickness of the intestinal wall, especially in the lower rectum; therefore, it is suggested that a simulation with a tube similar in size to the FTRD should be performed during the screening colonoscopy in order to establish whether an endoscopic resection with FTRD is possible.
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic validity of a full-thickness resection is higher compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD). Whereas transanal endoscopic microsurgery techniques (TEM, TAMIS) are established therapeutic procedures in the rectum no established and safe minimally invasive or endoscopic procedure exists in the colon. AIM: In this study the novel endoscopic full thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco, Germany) was investigated concerning success rates with histologically proven full thickness resections, R0 status as well as patient and device safety for the rectum and colon. METHOD: In the period from November 2014 to June 2015 full thickness resections in the rectum and colon were performed with the FTRD in 20 patients. Data on technical success, R0 resection rate and histologically confirmed full thickness resections were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The following indications were treated in the rectum (n = 11) and colon (n = 9): T1 carcinoma (n = 6) and neuroendocrine tumors (n = 2), untreated and nonlifting adenomas (n = 3) and incomplete resection of adenomas with low and high grade dysplasia (n = 9). The technical success rate was 75 %, 3 technical failures made a conventional polypectomy necessary in 2 patients and in 1 patient an operative resection of the duplicated intestinal wall had to be performed. The median endoscopic follow-up time was 61.5 days (n = 10) and in 7 patients the clip had dislodged at the first follow-up. A thermal perforation in one case of conventional polypectomy gave rise to indications for a partial resection of the colon. In one patient the lesion in the cecum could be reached but not treated for technical reasons. The histological R0 rate was 80 %, whereas the full thickness resection rate was 60 % (85.7 % in the colon and 54.6 % in the rectum). In two patients with carcinoma and incomplete FTRD, surgical treatment was performed. The median size of the resection specimen was 5 cm(2) (range 1.6-12.9 cm(2)). CONCLUSION: The results show that FTRD is a safe and effective instrument for use in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Limitations of the FTRD system concerning full thickness resection are scarring, fibrosis and thickness of the intestinal wall, especially in the lower rectum; therefore, it is suggested that a simulation with a tube similar in size to the FTRD should be performed during the screening colonoscopy in order to establish whether an endoscopic resection with FTRD is possible.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clip; FTRD; Full thickness; Resection; Transanal minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Daniel von Renteln; Thomas Kratt; Thomas Rösch; Ulrike W Denzer; Guido Schachschal Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Marc O Schurr; Franziska E Baur; Martina Krautwald; Marion Fehlker; Manfred Wehrmann; Thomas Gottwald; Ruediger L Prosst Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Matthew R Albert; Sam B Atallah; Teresa C deBeche-Adams; Seema Izfar; Sergio W Larach Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: M L Malmstrøm; I Gögenur; L B Riis; H Hassan; T W Klausen; T Perner; A Săftoiu; P Vilmann Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: M L Malmstrøm; S Brisling; T W Klausen; A Săftoiu; T Perner; P Vilmann; I Gögenur Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Irmengard Krutzenbichler; Markus Dollhopf; Helmut Diepolder; Andreas Eigler; Martin Fuchs; Simon Herrmann; Gerhard Kleber; Björn Lewerenz; Christoph Kaiser; Tilman Lilje; Timo Rath; Ayman Agha; Francesco Vitali; Claus Schäfer; Wolfgang Schepp; Felix Gundling Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Patrick Aepli; Dominique Criblez; Stephan Baumeler; Jan Borovicka; Remus Frei Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 4.623