The ENKI-2 water-jet system versus Dual Knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal lesions: a randomized comparative animal study

Background and study aims: The ENKI-2 water-jet system for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) combines submucosal saline pressure injection with dissection. The aim of this study was to compare ENKI-2 with a standard device in terms of procedure time and perforation rate during colorectal ESD.

Methods: In this randomized comparative study, 10 30-mm-diameter lesions were created in the colon and rectum of 10 healthy adult pigs. The ESD procedure time and perforation rates were recorded for the ENKI-2 system and a standard Dual Knife method. Each pig had half the lesions dissected by ENKI-2 and half dissected by Dual Knife. One experienced and one inexperienced endoscopist took part in the study.

Results: A total of 95 lesions were dissected (47 by ENKI-2 and 48 by Dual Knife). The experienced endoscopist was able to excise comparably sized 30-mm lesions using both techniques. The dissection time was shorter for ENKI-2 (18.9 vs. 25.6 minutes; P = 0.034) and the perforation rate was lower compared with the Dual Knife (one perforation [4 %] vs. nine perforations [36 %]; P = 0.011). The inexperienced endoscopist performed significantly larger dissections using the ENKI-2 (934 ± 405 mm² vs. 673 ± 312 mm²; P = 0.021) despite pre-marking similarly sized artificial lesions. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that for all lesions the dissection time was significantly longer for lesions in the proximal colon (P = 0.001) and the distal colon (P < 0.0001) and shorter for the experienced operator (P < 0.0001). ENKI-2 shortened the dissection time, but not significantly (P = 0.093).

Conclusions: In experienced hands, the ENKI-2 system shortens dissection time and reduces the perforation rate. This effect was not statistically significant for an inexperienced operator. Dissection was faster in the rectum than the colon.

• References

• 1 Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I et al. Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 877-883
• 2 Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24: 225-230
• 3 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections. Gastroint Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
• 4 Yahagi N, Neuhaus H, Schumacher B et al. Comparison of standard endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus an optimized ESD technique for the colon: an animal study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 340-345
• 5 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Matthes EL, Maurice D et al. A novel device for endoscopic submucosal dissection that combines water-jet submucosal hydro dissection and elevation with electrocautery: initial experience in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 615-618
• 6 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Metz AJ et al. Beyond the snare: technically accessible large en bloc colonic resection in the West: an animal study. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 21-29
• 7 Fukami N, Beom Ryu C, Said S et al. Prospective, randomized study of conventional versus HybridKnife endoscopic submucosal dissection methods for the esophagus: an animal study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;
• 8 Lingenfelder T, Fischer K, Sold GM et al. Combination of water-jet dissection and needle knife as a hybrid simplifies endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1531-1535
• 9 Neuhaus H, Wirths K, Schenk M et al. Randomized controlled study of EMR versus endoscopic submucosal dissection with a water-jet hybrid-knife of esophageal lesions in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 112-120
• 10 Farhat S, Chaussade S, Ponchon T et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in a European setting. A multi-institutional report of a technique in development. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 664-670
• 11 Lepilliez V, Robles-Medranda C, Ciocirlan M et al. Water-jet dissector for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an animal study: outcomes of the continuous and pulsed modes. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 2921-2927
• 12 http://www.nestis.fr/
• 13 Yahagi N, Uraoka T, Ida Y et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection using the Flex and the Dual knives. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 13: 74-78
• 14 Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11: 116-128 Program available from: http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/PowerSampleSize
• 15 http://www.randomizer.org/
• 16 Goulet CJ, James JA, Emerson L et al. In vivo evaluation of argon plasma coagulation in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 457-462
• 17 http://icbl.vetagro-sup.fr/index.html