BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using the Clutch Cutter (CC), a scissor-type knife, compared with those of procedures using conventional devices. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study evaluated 237 patients with early gastric cancer: 83 who underwent ESD using the CC group and 154 who underwent ESD using the insulated-tip knife 2 (IT2 group). Clinicopathological features and technical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: In 61 pairs of matched patients, there was no significant difference in R0 resection, perforation, or postoperative bleeding between the CC and IT2 groups. Comparisons between the 2 groups showed similar treatment outcomes for an expert endoscopist. Nevertheless, there were significant differences between the 2 groups for nonexperts in terms of self-completion (61.7 and 24.5%, respectively, p < 0.001), mean procedure times (45 and 61 min, respectively, p = 0.002), and mean numbers of intraoperative bleeding points and bleeding points requiring hemostatic forceps (3 and 0 vs. 8 and 3, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Better self-completion rates and shorter procedure times were noted for gastric ESD using the CC by nonexperts than for that using IT2, probably due to hemostatic efficacy.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using the Clutch Cutter (CC), a scissor-type knife, compared with those of procedures using conventional devices. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study evaluated 237 patients with early gastric cancer: 83 who underwent ESD using the CC group and 154 who underwent ESD using the insulated-tip knife 2 (IT2 group). Clinicopathological features and technical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: In 61 pairs of matched patients, there was no significant difference in R0 resection, perforation, or postoperative bleeding between the CC and IT2 groups. Comparisons between the 2 groups showed similar treatment outcomes for an expert endoscopist. Nevertheless, there were significant differences between the 2 groups for nonexperts in terms of self-completion (61.7 and 24.5%, respectively, p < 0.001), mean procedure times (45 and 61 min, respectively, p = 0.002), and mean numbers of intraoperative bleeding points and bleeding points requiring hemostatic forceps (3 and 0 vs. 8 and 3, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Better self-completion rates and shorter procedure times were noted for gastric ESD using the CC by nonexperts than for that using IT2, probably due to hemostatic efficacy.