Xiao Liu1, Xinying Yu2, Yanbin Wang1, Jianfeng Yu1, Xinjuan Liu1, Zhen Liu1, Jianyu Hao3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Workers Stadium South Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 South Fourth Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 8 Workers Stadium South Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, People's Republic of China. haojianyucyyy@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among all types of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms, colorectal lesions are recognized as one of the most difficult locations to operate, due to the limited operation space, physiological bends, poor visualization of the submucosal dissection plane sheltered by colorectal crinkle wall, and the thin intestinal mucosa layer which is easy to perforation. The purpose of this prospective study is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a novel endoscopic traction technique in assisting the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure in colorectal lesions. METHOD: A total of 117 patients with colonic lesions who underwent endoscopic treatment were enrolled between August 2020 and January 2021 at the endoscopic center of Beijing Chao-yang Hospital of Capital Medical University. Based on whether traction device was used during the operation, 60 and 57 patients were assigned to the conventional ESD group and clips and rubber band triangle traction-assisted ESD group (CRT-ESD, in which three clips and a rubber band were used to form an elastic triangular traction device), respectively. The total procedure time (TPT), submucosal dissection time (SDT), submucosal dissection speed (SDS), and rate of adverse events of the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: After excluding patients who did not undergo treatment (conventional ESD, 1; CRT-ESD, 4), 112 patients were included in the study (conventional ESD, 59; CRT-ESD, 53). The baseline characteristics of the patients were well balanced between the two groups. The TPT (58.71 ± 26.22 min vs 33.58 ± 9.88 min, p < 0.001) and SDT (49.24 ± 23.75 min vs 26.34 ± 8.75 min, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the conventional ESD group and CRT-ESD group. The CRT-ESD group had significantly higher SDS than that of the traditional ESD group (0.54 ± 0.42 cm2/min vs 0.89 ± 0.40 cm2/min, p < 0.001). There were 4 (6.8%) cases of perforation in the traditional ESD group, and no perforation occurred in traction-assisted ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional ESD, CRT-ESD with clip and rubber band is both safer and more effective in the treatment of colorectal lesions.
BACKGROUND: Among all types of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms, colorectal lesions are recognized as one of the most difficult locations to operate, due to the limited operation space, physiological bends, poor visualization of the submucosal dissection plane sheltered by colorectal crinkle wall, and the thin intestinal mucosa layer which is easy to perforation. The purpose of this prospective study is to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a novel endoscopic traction technique in assisting the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure in colorectal lesions. METHOD: A total of 117 patients with colonic lesions who underwent endoscopic treatment were enrolled between August 2020 and January 2021 at the endoscopic center of Beijing Chao-yang Hospital of Capital Medical University. Based on whether traction device was used during the operation, 60 and 57 patients were assigned to the conventional ESD group and clips and rubber band triangle traction-assisted ESD group (CRT-ESD, in which three clips and a rubber band were used to form an elastic triangular traction device), respectively. The total procedure time (TPT), submucosal dissection time (SDT), submucosal dissection speed (SDS), and rate of adverse events of the two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: After excluding patients who did not undergo treatment (conventional ESD, 1; CRT-ESD, 4), 112 patients were included in the study (conventional ESD, 59; CRT-ESD, 53). The baseline characteristics of the patients were well balanced between the two groups. The TPT (58.71 ± 26.22 min vs 33.58 ± 9.88 min, p < 0.001) and SDT (49.24 ± 23.75 min vs 26.34 ± 8.75 min, p < 0.001) were significantly different between the conventional ESD group and CRT-ESD group. The CRT-ESD group had significantly higher SDS than that of the traditional ESD group (0.54 ± 0.42 cm2/min vs 0.89 ± 0.40 cm2/min, p < 0.001). There were 4 (6.8%) cases of perforation in the traditional ESD group, and no perforation occurred in traction-assisted ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional ESD, CRT-ESD with clip and rubber band is both safer and more effective in the treatment of colorectal lesions.
Keywords:
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); Submucosal dissection speed (SDS); Submucosal dissection time (SDT); The total procedure time (TPT); Traction device