BACKGROUND: Appropriate traction allows for safer and easier endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for ESD in an ex vivo porcine model. METHODS: The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and a suture attached to a through-the-scope clip. A circumferential mucosal incision was completed around a 30-mm diameter template that served as the target lesion. The first MTD was deployed at the proximal edge of the lesion. A second MTD was deployed on the wall opposite the lesion. With both magnets connected, this created traction or lifting of the target lesion towards the opposing wall during submucosal dissection. Primary endpoint was comparison of submucosal dissection times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD). RESULTS: Twenty lesions along the anterior wall, posterior wall and greater curvature were resected using either C-ESD or MTD-ESD. The submucosal dissection time in MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD (median: 6.4 [interquartile range {IQR} 4.6-8.7] min vs. 14.4 min [IQR 11.8-18.0], p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between MTD-ESD and C-ESD in total procedure times for lesions on the posterior gastric wall and greater curvature (median: 23.0 min [IQR 21.1-24.5] vs. 29.2 min [IQR 24.8-33.2], p < 0.05) with no difference for lesions on the anterior gastric wall (median: 18.8 min [IQR 15.5-20.5] vs. 17.1 min [IQR 13.1-20.0], p = 0.5). The number of muscularis propria injuries per lesion was significantly lower in MTD-ESD than C-ESD (median: 0 [IQR 0-0] vs. 1 [IQR 0-2], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MTD for ESD is effective and safe when compared to C-ESD. This approach significantly reduced submucosal dissection times with less injury to the muscularis propria. Furthermore, MTD-ESD was particularly beneficial for more challenging gastric lesions located on the posterior wall and greater curvature.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate traction allows for safer and easier endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for ESD in an ex vivo porcine model. METHODS: The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and a suture attached to a through-the-scope clip. A circumferential mucosal incision was completed around a 30-mm diameter template that served as the target lesion. The first MTD was deployed at the proximal edge of the lesion. A second MTD was deployed on the wall opposite the lesion. With both magnets connected, this created traction or lifting of the target lesion towards the opposing wall during submucosal dissection. Primary endpoint was comparison of submucosal dissection times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD). RESULTS: Twenty lesions along the anterior wall, posterior wall and greater curvature were resected using either C-ESD or MTD-ESD. The submucosal dissection time in MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD (median: 6.4 [interquartile range {IQR} 4.6-8.7] min vs. 14.4 min [IQR 11.8-18.0], p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between MTD-ESD and C-ESD in total procedure times for lesions on the posterior gastric wall and greater curvature (median: 23.0 min [IQR 21.1-24.5] vs. 29.2 min [IQR 24.8-33.2], p < 0.05) with no difference for lesions on the anterior gastric wall (median: 18.8 min [IQR 15.5-20.5] vs. 17.1 min [IQR 13.1-20.0], p = 0.5). The number of muscularis propria injuries per lesion was significantly lower in MTD-ESD than C-ESD (median: 0 [IQR 0-0] vs. 1 [IQR 0-2], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: MTD for ESD is effective and safe when compared to C-ESD. This approach significantly reduced submucosal dissection times with less injury to the muscularis propria. Furthermore, MTD-ESD was particularly beneficial for more challenging gastric lesions located on the posterior wall and greater curvature.
Authors: N Sakamoto; T Osada; T Shibuya; K Beppu; K Matsumoto; Y Shimada; A Konno; A Kurosawa; A Nagahara; T Ohkusa; T Ogihara; S Watanabe Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; So Fei Hon; Tony Wing Chung Mak; Enders Kwok Wai Ng; James Yun Wong Lau Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: H Imaeda; Y Iwao; H Ogata; H Ichikawa; M Mori; N Hosoe; T Masaoka; M Nakashita; H Suzuki; N Inoue; K Aiura; H Nagata; K Kumai; T Hibi Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2006-04-27 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Akira Dobashi; Andrew C Storm; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Jodie L Deters; Charles A Miller; Crystal J Tholen; Christopher J Gostout; Elizabeth Rajan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 4.584