| Literature DB >> 28691052 |
Yoshiki Sakaguchi1, Yosuke Tsuji1, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro1,2, Yosuke Kataoka1, Itaru Saito1, Satoki Shichijo1, Chihiro Minatsuki1, Itsuko Asada-Hirayama1, Daisuke Yamaguchi2, Keiko Niimi3, Satoshi Ono1, Shinya Kodashima1, Nobutake Yamamichi1, Kazuhiko Koike1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endosurgical devices with injection function have been reported to decrease endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) operation times for experts, but the efficacy of these devices for inexperienced endoscopists is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ESD using a novel ESD knife (DN-D2718B). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-center prospective pilot clinical feasibility study. Patients diagnosed with superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms were enrolled. A pre-specified group of ESD trainees with ESD experience on a porcine gastric model and fewer than 30 cases of ESD in their selected fields performed ESD under expert supervision, using the DN-D2718B. En bloc resection rates, R0 resection rates, procedure times, and incidence of intra-operational/post-operational adverse events were assessed.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28691052 PMCID: PMC5500109 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-111720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Endosurgical device DN-D2718B. a When the knife is extended, the disk enables effective incision and stability during dissection. b When the tip is retracted, the entire metal surface enables coagulation. c Effective injection can be achieved with this device.
Fig. 2Flow diagram of the study patients.
Results of ESD training with DN-D2718B.
| Esophagus | Stomach | Colon | ||||
| Trainee A | Trainee B | Trainee C | Trainee D | Trainee E | Trainee F | |
| Pre-study training | ||||||
Porcine gastric model ESD (cases) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
ESD in specified field (cases) | 0 | 0 | 26 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
Completion of > 30 gastric ESD training | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Results of ESD with DN-D2718B | ||||||
ESD in specified field (cases) | 10 | 3 | 13 | 14 | 9 | 5 |
| Patient Background | ||||||
Gender, male/female | 10/0 | 3/0 | 9/4 | 12/2 | 4/5 | 2/3 |
Age at ESD, mean ± SD, years | 70.0 ± 6.0 | 77.3 ± 10.0 | 70.6 ± 9.0 | 69.5 ± 6.9 | 69.2 ± 12.1 | 75.8 ± 11.7 |
| Tumor Background | ||||||
Tumor depth (M/SM1/SM2) | 10/0/0 | 3/0/0 | 12/0/1 | 13/0/1 | 7/1/1 | 5/0/0 |
Tumor maximum length, mean ± SD, mm | 24.8 ± 15.4 | 30.0 ± 13.1 | 16.3 ± 8.9 | 13.2 ± 8.5 | 32.6 ± 11.2 | 23.8 ± 19.4 |
Specimen maximum length, mean ± SD, mm | 33.0 ± 13.8 | 43.3 ± 33.3 | 42.1 ± 9.4 | 39.2 ± 12.8 | 38.4 ± 9.0 | 31.5 ± 15.8 |
Specimen size, mean ± SD, mm 2 | 672.6 ± 465.7 | 1204.2 ± 131.7 | 1183.6 ± 593.0 | 1031.9 ± 588.3 | 1226.2 ± 451.2 | 932.5 ± 857.6 |
| Results of ESD | ||||||
Self-completion, n/total (%) | 10/10 (100) | 3/3 (100) | 10/13 (76.9) | 13/14 (92.9) | 9/9 (100) | 5/5 (100) |
Resection time, mean ± SD, min | 69.8 ± 43.1 | 84.7 ± 43.6 | 122.9 ± 65.2 | 113.8 ± 61.5 | 73.7 ± 34.3 | 75.5 ± 26.3 |
Overall resection speed, mean ± SD, mm 2 /min | 9.4 ± 3.9 | 13.4 ± 4.6 | 11.1 ± 7.2 | 12.2 ± 5.9 | 16.7 ± 6.6 | 15.6 ± 9.1 |
En bloc resection rate, n/total (%) | 10/10 (100) | 3/3 (100) | 13/13 (100) | 14/14 (100) | 9/9 (100) | 5/5 (100) |
R0 resection rate, n/total (%) | 7/10 (70.0) | 2/3 (66.7) | 13/13 (100) | 14/14 (100) | 6/9 (66.7) | 5/5 (100) |
| Adverse events | ||||||
Incidence of intraoperative adverse events, n/total (%) | 0/10 (0) | 0/3 (0) | 0/13 (0) | 0/14 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/5 (0) |
Incidence of postoperative adverse events, n/total (%)
| 2/10 (20.0) | 1/3 (33.3) | 0/13 (0) | 2/14 (14.3) | 0/9 (0) | 0/5 (0) |
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; M, mucosal, SM, submucosal
All postoperative adverse events after esophageal ESD were stricture, and after gastric ESD were delayed hemorrhage.