Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(10): E1273-E1279
DOI: 10.1055/a-1226-6372
Original article

ESD with double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform versus standard ESD for management of colon polyps

Mohamed Saleh Ismail
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2   Department of Internal medicine, Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Firas Bahdi
3   Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Michael Oliver Mercado
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Randa Habazi
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Angel Alexander
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Sahana Prabhu
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Sharon John
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Chandra Kovvali
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
Mohamed O. Othman
1   Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
4   Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with the double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (DEIP) is a novel technique for removal of complex colon polyps (> 2 cm) or those located in anatomically difficult positions. DEIP helps create a therapeutic zone with improved visualization and stability, facilitating polyp removal. We aimed to compare the outcomes of DEIP with the conventional cap-assisted ESD (standard ESD) technique for colon polyp resection, in particular, the ability to complete the ESD procedure without resorting to hybrid ESD or piecemeal resection.

Patients and methods This was a retrospective cohort of all patients who underwent colon ESD in a single large tertiary referral center between September 2016 and October 2019. Information was collected on patient demographics and study outcomes including procedure time, rates of en bloc and curative resection, operative and postoperative complications. All patients were followed up for 1 month after the procedure.

Results 111 patients were included in the study (DEIP 60, standard ESD 51). There was no statistically significant difference between mean procedures time (± SD) in the two groups, mean (81.9 ± 35.4 min standard vs. 96.4 ± 42.2 min in DEIP). Mean polyp size (± SD) was similar between the two groups (7.6 ± 6.0 cm2 vs. 6.2 ± 5.5 cm2, P = .2). There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates or operative and postoperative complications between the two techniques.

Conclusion Procedure time was similar using both techniques. However, DEIP enabled the entire procedure to be performed using the ESD technique without resorting to snare resection, which may affect the en bloc and curative resection rate. There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates between the two groups, probably due to the small sample size.



Publication History

Received: 06 May 2020

Accepted: 29 June 2020

Article published online:
22 September 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Repici A, Hassan C, De Paula Pessoa D. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: A systematic review. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 137-150
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bhatt A, Abe S, Kumaravel A. et al. Indications and techniques for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 784-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Bhandari M, Alkandari A. et al. Recent advances in the management of large and complex colonic polyps. F1000Research 2018; 7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yoshida N, Yagi N, Naito Y. et al. Safe procedure in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors focused on preventing complications. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1688-1695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bae JH, Yang DH, Lee S. et al. Optimized hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: A randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 584-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Okamoto K, Muguruma N, Kagemoto K. et al. Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Draganov PV, Gotoda T, Chavalitdhamrong D. et al. Techniques of endoscopic submucosal dissection: Application for the Western endoscopist?. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 677-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sharma S, Momose K, Hara H. et al. Facilitating endoscopic submucosal dissection: double-balloon endolumenal platform significantly improves dissection time compared with conventional technique (with video). Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 315-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sharma S, Hiratsuka T, Hara H. et al. Antigravity ESD – double-balloon-assisted underwater with traction hybrid technique. Endosc Int Open 2018; 06: E739-E744
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jacques J, Albouys J, Guyot A. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of a laterally spreading tumor in the right colon with a gastroscope after shortening the colon using a new double-balloon platform. Endoscopy 2019; 51: E364-E365
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rex DK, Shaukat A, Wallace MB. Optimal management of malignant polyps, from endoscopic assessment and resection to decisions about surgery. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 1428-1437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T. et al. Efficacy and adverse events of emr and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: A meta-analysis of studies comparing emr and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 583-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Takezawa T, Hayashi Y, Shinozaki S. et al. The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1045-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jung D, Youn YH, Jahng J. et al. Risk of electrocoagulation syndrome after endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon and rectum. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 714-717
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar