BACKGROUND: Efficacy of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by an expert endoscopist has been reported. We hypothesized that use of the MTD would enhance the performance of colorectal ESD in a non-expert endoscopist in ESD compared to the conventional technique. Primary aim of this study was to compare procedure times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD) by expert and non-expert endoscopists in ESD. Secondary aims included rate of en bloc resection, iatrogenic injury, visualization score of the submucosal layer, and endoscopist satisfaction score. METHODS: A total of 56 lesions were created in an ex vivo porcine colorectum. Two endoscopists completed C-ESD (n = 28) and MTD-ESD (n = 28). Lesions measured 3 cm in diameter and were located on either the anterior or posterior colorectal wall. The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and nylon monofilament attached to a through-the-scope clip. The first MTD was deployed on the opposing colorectal wall of the target lesion and a second MTD was then deployed directly onto the distal margin of the lesion. RESULTS: Total procedure time for MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD for both expert (median: 15.8 vs. 19.3 min, p < 0.05) and non-expert (median: 21.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001) endoscopists. All lesions were resected en bloc. There was no iatrogenic muscularis propria injury in the MTD-ESD group. For both the expert and non-expert, scores for MTD-ESD were significantly higher for submucosal layer visualization (p < 0.05) and endoscopist satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to C-ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MTD significantly reduced procedure time for both expert and non-expert endoscopists performing ESD. Improving the efficiency, safety, and satisfaction of ESD with such a device particularly for non-expert endoscopists is appealing and could potentially minimize the complexity and duration of the procedure allowing for more widespread use of the technique.
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by an expert endoscopist has been reported. We hypothesized that use of the MTD would enhance the performance of colorectal ESD in a non-expert endoscopist in ESD compared to the conventional technique. Primary aim of this study was to compare procedure times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD) by expert and non-expert endoscopists in ESD. Secondary aims included rate of en bloc resection, iatrogenic injury, visualization score of the submucosal layer, and endoscopist satisfaction score. METHODS: A total of 56 lesions were created in an ex vivo porcine colorectum. Two endoscopists completed C-ESD (n = 28) and MTD-ESD (n = 28). Lesions measured 3 cm in diameter and were located on either the anterior or posterior colorectal wall. The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and nylon monofilament attached to a through-the-scope clip. The first MTD was deployed on the opposing colorectal wall of the target lesion and a second MTD was then deployed directly onto the distal margin of the lesion. RESULTS: Total procedure time for MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD for both expert (median: 15.8 vs. 19.3 min, p < 0.05) and non-expert (median: 21.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001) endoscopists. All lesions were resected en bloc. There was no iatrogenic muscularis propria injury in the MTD-ESD group. For both the expert and non-expert, scores for MTD-ESD were significantly higher for submucosal layer visualization (p < 0.05) and endoscopist satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to C-ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the MTD significantly reduced procedure time for both expert and non-expert endoscopists performing ESD. Improving the efficiency, safety, and satisfaction of ESD with such a device particularly for non-expert endoscopists is appealing and could potentially minimize the complexity and duration of the procedure allowing for more widespread use of the technique.
Authors: Khek-Yu Ho; Soo Jay Phee; Asim Shabbir; Soon Chiang Low; Van An Huynh; Andy Prima Kencana; Kai Yang; Davide Lomanto; Bok Yan Jimmy So; Y Y Jennie Wong; S C Sydney Chung Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 9.427
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: K Matsumoto; A Nagahara; N Sakamoto; M Suyama; H Konuma; T Morimoto; E Sagawa; H Ueyama; T Takahashi; K Beppu; T Shibuya; T Osada; T Yoshizawa; T Ogihara; S Watanabe Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: P H Deprez; J J Bergman; S Meisner; T Ponchon; A Repici; M Dinis-Ribeiro; J Haringsma Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2010-07-09 Impact factor: 10.093
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