Jérémie Albouys1, Martin Dahan2, Hugo Lepetit2, Aurélie Charissoux3, Anne Guyot3, Mathieu Pioche4, Romain Legros2, Paul Carrier2, Véronique Loustaud-Ratti2, Sophie Geyl2, Jérémie Jacques2. 1. Service d'hépato-gastro-entérologie, CHU Dupuytren, 2 avenue Martin Luther-King, 87042, Limoges, France. jeremie.albouys@gmail.com. 2. Service d'hépato-gastro-entérologie, CHU Dupuytren, 2 avenue Martin Luther-King, 87042, Limoges, France. 3. Service d'anatomopathologie, CHU Dupuytren, 2 avenue Martin Luther-King, 87042, Limoges, France. 4. Service d'hépato-gastro-entérologie, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices civils de lyon, 69003, Lyon, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In Western countries, debates between ESD vs piece-meal EMR as the best treatment for large colorectal adenomas persist regarding the difficulty of ESD the colon, and the safety and relatively good results of piece-meal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Pocket-creation method (PCM) and double-clip countertraction (DCT) are two strategies recently published to facilitate ESD in this challenging situation. METHOD: This is a randomized animal study to compare PCM and DCT strategies for colonic ESD on ex vivo models (bovine colon) performed by 3 operators novice in ESD. Hybridknife type T was used to inject normal saline tinted with a small amount of blue dye in all procedures. Randomization was stratified according to the use of gravity assist. Primary endpoint was the difference in resection speed between PCM and DCT strategies. RESULTS:Resection speed was significantly higher in the DCT group than in the PCM group (56.3 vs. 31.6 mm2/min, p = 0.01). Technical success rate, defined as en bloc resection in under 60 min, was significantly better in the DCT group than in the PCM group (100% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.024), perforation rate was lower (0% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.012), and difficulty score was better (2.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001) as was procedure duration (24.2 vs. 40.2 min, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION:DCT was superior to PCM for ESD in our validated bovine colon model. This strategy is inexpensive, easy to use and adaptive. It might facilitate the widespread use of colonic ESD in Western countries and change Western ideas regarding the use of colonic ESD compared with piece-meal EMR for large benign lesions.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: In Western countries, debates between ESD vs piece-meal EMR as the best treatment for large colorectal adenomas persist regarding the difficulty of ESD the colon, and the safety and relatively good results of piece-meal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Pocket-creation method (PCM) and double-clip countertraction (DCT) are two strategies recently published to facilitate ESD in this challenging situation. METHOD: This is a randomized animal study to compare PCM and DCT strategies for colonic ESD on ex vivo models (bovine colon) performed by 3 operators novice in ESD. Hybridknife type T was used to inject normal saline tinted with a small amount of blue dye in all procedures. Randomization was stratified according to the use of gravity assist. Primary endpoint was the difference in resection speed between PCM and DCT strategies. RESULTS: Resection speed was significantly higher in the DCT group than in the PCM group (56.3 vs. 31.6 mm2/min, p = 0.01). Technical success rate, defined as en bloc resection in under 60 min, was significantly better in the DCT group than in the PCM group (100% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.024), perforation rate was lower (0% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.012), and difficulty score was better (2.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001) as was procedure duration (24.2 vs. 40.2 min, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION:DCT was superior to PCM for ESD in our validated bovine colon model. This strategy is inexpensive, easy to use and adaptive. It might facilitate the widespread use of colonic ESD in Western countries and change Western ideas regarding the use of colonic ESD compared with piece-meal EMR for large benign lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal; ESD; Ex vivo; Pocket; Traction; Training