Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional and underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal neoplasms

Abstract

Background and study aims

This study compared procedure-related outcomes of conventional and underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial colorectal neoplasms (SCNs).

Patients and methods

In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients with SCNs meeting the indications of the Japanese guidelines for ESD were randomly assigned to undergo conventional ESD (CESD) or underwater ESD (UESD) performed by an expert. The primary endpoint was dissection speed, defined as the specimen area per ESD time.

Results

We analyzed the data of 69 and 70 CESD and UESD cases, respectively; however, no significant differences were found in median dissection speed (17.4 and 19.9 mm²/min, respectively; P=0.19). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the suitable positional relationship between the lesion and the direction of gravity (nongravity side for CESD and gravity side for UESD) was independently and positively associated with dissection speed (P<0.001). En bloc resection was achieved without perforation in all cases. The incidence of post-ESD coagulation syndrome was not significantly different between the two groups (4.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively; P=0.68).

Conclusions

UESD did not expedite dissection speed in the overall patient population. CESD and UESD may be complementary in the colorectum depending on the positional relationship between the lesion and the direction of gravity.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 13. Juni 2024

Angenommen nach Revision: 17. Oktober 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
18. Oktober 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. November 2024

• References

• 1 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T. et al. A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection with the patient under conscious sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 537-542
• 2 Arimoto J, Higurashi T, Kato S. et al. Risk factors for post-colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E342-E349
• 3 Nagata M. Usefulness of underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection in saline solution with a monopolar knife for colorectal tumors (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1345-1353
• 4 Koyama Y, Fukuzawa M, Aikawa H. et al. Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors decreases the incidence of post-electrocoagulation syndrome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 38: 1566-1575
• 5 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 417-434
• 6 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
• 7 Matsumoto A, Tanaka S, Oba S. et al. Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors accompanied by fibrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 1329-1337
• 8 Yoshida N, Naito Y, Hirose R. et al. Risk of lens cloudiness during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and ability of a novel lens cleaner to maintain and restore endoscopic view. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 609-617
• 9 Kamigaichi Y, Oka S, Tanaka S. et al. Factors for conversion risk of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 5698-5709
• 10 Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, Man IM. et al. Clinical significance of the muscle-retracting sign during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E246-E251
• 11 Nagata M. Tapered hood with wide holes in its sides for efficient air bubble removal during underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 654
• 12 Nagata M. Continuous low water pressure dissection technique minimizing air bubbles during underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2024; 56: E699-E700
• 13 Nomura T, Sugimoto S, Hayashi Y. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a gas-free saline-immersion dissection technique. Endoscopy 2023; 55: E1039-E1040
• 14 Sasaki M, Masunaga T, Miyazaki K. et al. Automatic water irrigation synchronized with the electrosurgical unit: Bubble-free underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2024; 56: E468-E469
• 15 Tashima T, Nakano Y, Jinushi R. et al. Gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection for an anorectal tumor with hemorrhoids close to the dentate line. Endoscopy 2022; 54: E298-E299
• 16 Cecinato P, Lucarini M, Campanale C. et al. Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10: E1225-E1232
• 17 Ozeki Y, Hirasawa K, Ikeda R. et al. Safety and efficacy of water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors with submucosal fibrosis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 607-617.e602
• 18 Mavrogenis G, Mavrogenis I, Anastasiadis S. et al. Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection in saline solution with rubber-band countertraction for a cecal polyp extending into a diverticulum. Ann Gastroenterol 2019; 32: 527
• 19 Despott EJ, Hirayama Y, Lazaridis N. et al. Saline immersion therapeutic endoscopy facilitated pocket-creation method for endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 652-653
• 20 Jacques J, Charissoux A, Bordillon P. et al. High proficiency of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe thanks to countertraction strategy using a double clip and rubber band. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1166-E1174