Peng Jin1, Kuang-I Fu1, Yang Yu1, Yu-Qi He1, Zhi Wei2, Xin Wang1, Qiang Cai3, Jian-Qiu Sheng4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, PLA Army General Hospital, Beijing 100700, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Jinan Military General Hospital, Jinan, China. 3. Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, PLA Army General Hospital, Nanmencang 5#, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100700, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal operative process of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), especially for the beginners, is not established. In this study, the clip-with-line method, the tunneling method and the conventional method for esophageal ESD were compared in a training course on live pigs. METHODS: 15 trainee endoscopists were randomized into three groups, the clip-with-line method group, the tunneling method group, and the conventional method group. Each trainee performed four esophageal ESDs on live pigs with one of the specified methods, assisted by a senior endoscopist. The procedural time and speed, the en bloc resection rates, adverse events, and self-completion rates were recorded, and learning curves were drawn. RESULTS: The procedural time in the clip-with-line group was significantly shorter than those in the tunneling and the conventional method group (47.4 ± 9.0 min versus 67.0 ± 15.1 min and 67.0 ± 11.8 min, p = 0.000). The clip-with-line method had the lowest rates of perforation and muscle layer injury among the three methods. The en bloc resection rates and self-completion rates were similar among the three groups. Learning curves analysis showed the clip-with-line method was the easiest one for the trainees to master. CONCLUSIONS: The clip-with-line method shortened procedural time for trainees, and was associated with lower rates of adverse events. This method is preferred for endoscopists in their learning periods for esophageal ESD.
BACKGROUND: The optimal operative process of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), especially for the beginners, is not established. In this study, the clip-with-line method, the tunneling method and the conventional method for esophageal ESD were compared in a training course on live pigs. METHODS: 15 trainee endoscopists were randomized into three groups, the clip-with-line method group, the tunneling method group, and the conventional method group. Each trainee performed four esophageal ESDs on live pigs with one of the specified methods, assisted by a senior endoscopist. The procedural time and speed, the en bloc resection rates, adverse events, and self-completion rates were recorded, and learning curves were drawn. RESULTS: The procedural time in the clip-with-line group was significantly shorter than those in the tunneling and the conventional method group (47.4 ± 9.0 min versus 67.0 ± 15.1 min and 67.0 ± 11.8 min, p = 0.000). The clip-with-line method had the lowest rates of perforation and muscle layer injury among the three methods. The en bloc resection rates and self-completion rates were similar among the three groups. Learning curves analysis showed the clip-with-line method was the easiest one for the trainees to master. CONCLUSIONS: The clip-with-line method shortened procedural time for trainees, and was associated with lower rates of adverse events. This method is preferred for endoscopists in their learning periods for esophageal ESD.
Entities:
Keywords:
animal model; endoscopic submucosal dissection; esophagus; traction method; training
Authors: Adolfo Parra-Blanco; María Rosa Arnau; David Nicolás-Pérez; Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Nicolás González; Juan A Díaz-Acosta; Alejandro Jiménez; Enrique Quintero Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: J Y Ahn; K D Choi; J Y Choi; M-Y Kim; J H Lee; K-S Choi; D H Kim; H J Song; G H Lee; H-Y Jung; J-H Kim Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 10.093
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
Authors: Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Simon Kin Hung Wong; Joseph Jao Yiu Sung; James Yun Wong Lau; Enders Kwok Wai Ng Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 4.584