BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate tension to the lesion and securing a stable view of the submucosal layer is important for accomplishing successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in gastric cancer. Dental floss clip traction (DFC), a new traction method, is proposed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the efficacy of DFC for gastric ESD. METHODS: From August to November 2014, a total of 95 patients with 104 gastric epithelial neoplasms underwent DFC-ESD (DFC group). Historical controls treated by conventional ESD (control group) were individually matched to cases at a 1:1 ratio by lesion location, ulcer findings, resected specimen size, and the proficiency of the operator (trainee/expert). The outcomes of the procedure in the two groups were then compared. RESULTS: The mean ± SD procedure time was 43 ± 24 min in the DFC group and 52 ± 30 min in the control group (P < 0.01). Fewer lesions in the DFC group needed >80 min compared with the control group (3-vs-16 cases, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. Perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in one and four lesions, respectively, in the DFC group, and three and nine in the control group. En bloc resection was achieved in all cases. No significant differences were found regarding curability of ESD between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: DFC effectively reduced ESD procedure time without increasing adverse events. DFC is helpful for rapid, safe ESD.
BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate tension to the lesion and securing a stable view of the submucosal layer is important for accomplishing successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in gastric cancer. Dental floss clip traction (DFC), a new traction method, is proposed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the efficacy of DFC for gastric ESD. METHODS: From August to November 2014, a total of 95 patients with 104 gastric epithelial neoplasms underwent DFC-ESD (DFC group). Historical controls treated by conventional ESD (control group) were individually matched to cases at a 1:1 ratio by lesion location, ulcer findings, resected specimen size, and the proficiency of the operator (trainee/expert). The outcomes of the procedure in the two groups were then compared. RESULTS: The mean ± SD procedure time was 43 ± 24 min in the DFC group and 52 ± 30 min in the control group (P < 0.01). Fewer lesions in the DFC group needed >80 min compared with the control group (3-vs-16 cases, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. Perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in one and four lesions, respectively, in the DFC group, and three and nine in the control group. En bloc resection was achieved in all cases. No significant differences were found regarding curability of ESD between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:DFC effectively reduced ESD procedure time without increasing adverse events. DFC is helpful for rapid, safe ESD.
Authors: T Rösch; M Sarbia; B Schumacher; K Deinert; E Frimberger; T Toermer; M Stolte; H Neuhaus Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.093