BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is more difficult than rectal ESD because of poor maneuverability of the endoscope due to physiologic flexion, peristalsis, and respiratory movements. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of the pocket-creation method (PCM) for colonic ESD compared with the conventional method (CM) regardless of lesion shape or location. METHODS: A total of 887 colorectal lesions were treated by ESD. Of 887 lesions, 271 rectal lesions, 72 lesions smaller than 20 mm in diameter, and 1 non-neoplastic lesion were excluded. This is a retrospective chart review of the remaining 543 colon lesions in 512 patients. We divided them into the PCM group (n = 280) and the CM group (n = 263). The primary outcome was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection (en bloc resection with negative margin), adverse events, dissection time (in minutes), and dissection speed (in mm2/min). RESULTS: The PCM group achieved a significantly higher en bloc resection rate (PCM, 100% [280/280], vs CM, 96% [253/263]; P < .001) and R0 resection rate (91% [255/280] vs 85% [224/263], respectively; P = .033) than the CM group. Dissection time was similar (69.5 ± 44.4 vs 78.7 ± 62.6 minutes, P = .676). Dissection speed was significantly faster with the PCM than with the CM (23.5 ± 11.6 vs 20.9 ± 13.6 mm2/min, P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was similar (perforation, 2% vs 4% [P = .152], and delayed bleeding, 2% vs 1% [P = .361]). CONCLUSIONS: Colonic ESD using the PCM significantly improves the rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection and facilitates rapid dissection.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is more difficult than rectal ESD because of poor maneuverability of the endoscope due to physiologic flexion, peristalsis, and respiratory movements. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of the pocket-creation method (PCM) for colonic ESD compared with the conventional method (CM) regardless of lesion shape or location. METHODS: A total of 887 colorectal lesions were treated by ESD. Of 887 lesions, 271 rectal lesions, 72 lesions smaller than 20 mm in diameter, and 1 non-neoplastic lesion were excluded. This is a retrospective chart review of the remaining 543 colon lesions in 512 patients. We divided them into the PCM group (n = 280) and the CM group (n = 263). The primary outcome was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection (en bloc resection with negative margin), adverse events, dissection time (in minutes), and dissection speed (in mm2/min). RESULTS: The PCM group achieved a significantly higher en bloc resection rate (PCM, 100% [280/280], vs CM, 96% [253/263]; P < .001) and R0 resection rate (91% [255/280] vs 85% [224/263], respectively; P = .033) than the CM group. Dissection time was similar (69.5 ± 44.4 vs 78.7 ± 62.6 minutes, P = .676). Dissection speed was significantly faster with the PCM than with the CM (23.5 ± 11.6 vs 20.9 ± 13.6 mm2/min, P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was similar (perforation, 2% vs 4% [P = .152], and delayed bleeding, 2% vs 1% [P = .361]). CONCLUSIONS:Colonic ESD using the PCM significantly improves the rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection and facilitates rapid dissection.
Authors: Peter V Draganov; Hiroyuki Aihara; Michael S Karasik; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Abdul Aziz Aadam; Mohamed O Othman; Neil Sharma; Ian S Grimm; Alaa Rostom; B Joseph Elmunzer; Salmaan A Jawaid; Donevan Westerveld; Yaseen B Perbtani; Brenda J Hoffman; Alexander Schlachterman; Amanda Siegel; Roxana M Coman; Andrew Y Wang; Dennis Yang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 22.682