Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model
-
Published:2023-08-11
Issue:10
Volume:37
Page:7749-7758
-
ISSN:0930-2794
-
Container-title:Surgical Endoscopy
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Surg Endosc
Author:
Knoop Richard F.ORCID, Amanzada Ahmad, Petzold Golo, Ellenrieder Volker, Engelhardt Michael, Neesse Albrecht, Bremer Sebastian C. B., Kunsch Steffen
Abstract
Abstract
Background and aims
With an external additional working channel (AWC) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as well as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be extended to techniques termed “EMR+” and “ESD+.” These novel techniques are systematically compared to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope (DC).
Methods
Our trial was conducted prospectively in a pre-clinical porcine animal model (EASIE-R simulator) with standardized gastric lesions measuring 3 or 4 cm.
Results
EMR+ and EMR DC showed both good results for 3 cm lesions with no adverse events and an en bloc resection rate of 73.33% (EMR+) and 60.00% (EMR DC, p = 0.70). They came to their limits in 4 cm lesions with muscularis damages of 20.00% (EMR+), 13.33% (EMR DC, p ≥ 0.99) and decreasing en bloc resection rates of 60.00% (EMR+) and 46.67% (EMR DC, p = 0.72).
ESD+ and ESD DC were both reliable concerning en bloc resection rates (100% in all groups) and adverse events (0.00% in 3 cm lesions, 12.50% muscularis damages in both ESD+ and ESD DC in 4 cm lesions).
Resection time was slightly shorter in all groups with the AWC compared to DC although only reaching significance in 3 cm ESD lesions (p < 0.05*).
Conclusions
With the AWC, a standard endoscope can easily be transformed to double-channel functionality. We could show that EMR+ and ESD+ are non-inferior to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope. Consequently, the AWC presents an affordable alternative to a double-channel endoscope for both EMR and ESD.
Funder
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference40 articles.
1. Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, Bhandari P, Dumonceau JM, Paspatis G, Jover R, Langner C, Bronzwaer M, Nalankilli K, Fockens P, Hazzan R, Gralnek IM, Gschwantler M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, Penz D, Heresbach D, Moons L, Lemmers A, Paraskeva K, Pohl J, Ponchon T, Regula J, Repici A, Rutter MD, Burgess NG, Bourke MJ (2017) Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 49:270–297 2. Holmes I, Friedland S (2016) Endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for large polyps: a western colonoscopist’s view. Clin Endosc 49:454–456 3. Wang J, Zhang XH, Ge J, Yang CM, Liu JY, Zhao SL (2014) Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20:8282–8287 4. Zhan T, Hielscher T, Hahn F, Hauf C, Betge J, Ebert MP, Belle S (2016) Risk factors for local recurrence of large, flat colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection. Digestion 93:311–317 5. Meier B, Caca K, Fischer A, Schmidt A (2017) Endoscopic management of colorectal adenomas. Ann Gastroenterol 30:592–597
|
|