Facilitating endoscopic submucosal dissection: double balloon endolumenal platform significantly improves dissection time compared with conventional technique (with video).
Dissection
Double balloon
Endoscopic
Retraction
Submucosal
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
19
08
2017
accepted:
06
07
2018
pubmed:
18
7
2018
medline:
8
1
2020
entrez:
18
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Flexible endoscopes ability to manipulate the intestinal environment is limited. As a result, complex endolumenal procedures are often technically demanding and result in long procedure times, impacting institutional resources. Single- and double-balloon add-on endoscopic devices have been employed throughout the GI tract to facilitate tissue control e.g., small bowel enteroscopy, with recent reports suggesting a possible colonic utility for complex procedures e.g., ESD. Our objective was to objectively analyze the efficacy of a new double-balloon device in performing ESD. Ex vivo-12 simulated colonic lesions were created in porcine rectum using a standard 40 mm diameter template. Two categories were evaluated, standard cap technique ESD and double-balloon assisted ESD with retraction (ESD-R). Cases were performed sequentially. In vivo-Six, 40 mm lesion ESD-R's were performed in a porcine model. The primary outcomes of this study were total procedure and dissection times. In ex vivo studies, the median total procedure time with the double-balloon platform was significantly shorter than the traditional ESD technique (29 ± 18 vs. 57 ± 21 min, p = 0.03). In the in vivo studies, lesions were successfully removed in a mean time of 48 min, with a dissection time of 20 min with no significant complications. Balloon-clip retraction and specimen retrieval capabilities were used in all double-balloon assisted cases. After 6 cases, times were significantly shorter (ex vivo 47 vs. 17 min; in vivo 57 vs. 27 min). We have demonstrated the development of a unique technical ESD method facilitated by a new double-balloon device. Ex and in vivo investigation demonstrated superiority of ESD-R over the conventional ex vivo method. The DB device provided increased stability, improved visualization and tissue traction, which significantly reduced dissection time. Such an approach may increase safety, improve patient outcomes, and may prevent unnecessary surgeries for benign conditions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Flexible endoscopes ability to manipulate the intestinal environment is limited. As a result, complex endolumenal procedures are often technically demanding and result in long procedure times, impacting institutional resources. Single- and double-balloon add-on endoscopic devices have been employed throughout the GI tract to facilitate tissue control e.g., small bowel enteroscopy, with recent reports suggesting a possible colonic utility for complex procedures e.g., ESD. Our objective was to objectively analyze the efficacy of a new double-balloon device in performing ESD.
METHODS
Ex vivo-12 simulated colonic lesions were created in porcine rectum using a standard 40 mm diameter template. Two categories were evaluated, standard cap technique ESD and double-balloon assisted ESD with retraction (ESD-R). Cases were performed sequentially. In vivo-Six, 40 mm lesion ESD-R's were performed in a porcine model. The primary outcomes of this study were total procedure and dissection times.
RESULTS
In ex vivo studies, the median total procedure time with the double-balloon platform was significantly shorter than the traditional ESD technique (29 ± 18 vs. 57 ± 21 min, p = 0.03). In the in vivo studies, lesions were successfully removed in a mean time of 48 min, with a dissection time of 20 min with no significant complications. Balloon-clip retraction and specimen retrieval capabilities were used in all double-balloon assisted cases. After 6 cases, times were significantly shorter (ex vivo 47 vs. 17 min; in vivo 57 vs. 27 min).
CONCLUSIONS
We have demonstrated the development of a unique technical ESD method facilitated by a new double-balloon device. Ex and in vivo investigation demonstrated superiority of ESD-R over the conventional ex vivo method. The DB device provided increased stability, improved visualization and tissue traction, which significantly reduced dissection time. Such an approach may increase safety, improve patient outcomes, and may prevent unnecessary surgeries for benign conditions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30014326
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6336-4
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6336-4
pmc: PMC6336930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
315-321Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Group USCSW United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2013 incidence and mortality web-based report, Atlanta
Nelson DB, Block KP, Bosco JJ, Burdick JS, Curtis WD, Faigel DO et al (2000) Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 52:860–863
doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70224-0
pubmed: 11182691
Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS, Lee KI, Jang BK, Chung WJ et al (2011) Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 43:573–578
doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256339
pubmed: 21448852
Yoshida N, Wakabayashi N, Kanemasa K, Sumida Y, Hasegawa D, Inoue K et al (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: technical difficulties and rate of perforation. Endoscopy 41:758–761
doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215028
pubmed: 19746316
Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N, Fukuda E, Ishii H, Ikeda K et al (2009) Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 41:679–683
doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1214979
Lee E-J, Lee JB, Choi YS, Lee SH, Lee DH, Kim DS et al (2012) Clinical risk factors for perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large-sized, nonpedunculated colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 26:1587–1594
doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-2075-5
pubmed: 22179462
Miller K, Waye JD (2001) Polyp retrieval after colonoscopic polypectomy: use of the Roth Retrieval Net. Gastrointest Endosc 54:505–507
doi: 10.1067/mge.2001.118255
pubmed: 11577319
Tanaka S, Toyonaga T, East J, Obata D, Fujiwara S, Wakahara C et al (2010) Endoscopic retrieval method using a small grip-seal plastic bag for large colorectal resection specimens after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 42:E186–E187
doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1244168
pubmed: 20680918
Ikehara H, Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T, Miwa H (2015) Specimen retrieval method using a sliding overtube for large colorectal neoplasm following endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 47:E168–E169
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1391496
pubmed: 25926185
Tamai N, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Nakajima T, Matsuda T, Tajiri H (2012) Safety and efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in elders: clinical and follow-up outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:1493–1499
doi: 10.1007/s00384-012-1514-7
pubmed: 22674345
Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y, Hotta K, Sakamoto N, Ikematsu H et al (2010) A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 72:1217–1225
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.08.004
pubmed: 21030017
Riff BP, DiMaio CJ (2016) Exploring the small bowel: update on deep enteroscopy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 18:28
doi: 10.1007/s11894-016-0503-3
pubmed: 27098815
Yamamoto H (2012) Endoscopic submucosal dissection–current success and future directions. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:519–529
doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2012.97
pubmed: 22664591
Overhiser AJ, Rex DK (2007) Work and resources needed for endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:1076–1079
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.04.022
pubmed: 17625979