Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Although several methods to create an effective counter traction for safer endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been reported, these methods do not overcome problems regarding delivery and ease of use. This randomized prospective study assessed the usefulness of ring-shaped thread counter traction, which not only allowed the safer colorectal ESD but also the easiest and lower cost counter traction without any special devices. Methods Forty-five patients diagnosed with colorectal lateral spreading tumors over 20 mm were allocated to the conventional ESD group (CE) ( n  = 22) and the ring-shaped thread counter traction ESD group (RE) ( n  = 21). The ring-shaped thread was hooked and lifted up to the contralateral mucosa with a hemoclip. The primary outcome was the dissected area per minute during ESD (cm 2 /min) (UMIN000020160). Results There were significant differences in the dissection time (min), with 130.0 (56.0–240.0) versus 80 (35.0–130.0) min for the CE and RE groups, respectively ( P  = 0.001). For the dissected areas per minute (cm 2 /min), there was a significant difference, with 0.125 (0.1–0.18) versus 0.235 (0.16–0.36) min ( P  = 0.003) for the CE and RE groups, respectively. There were 1 cases of perforation during ESD in the CE compared to 0 for the RE, and this was no significantly different ( P  = 0.31). The procedure time of producing and setting the ring-shaped thread counter traction was approximately 1.80 (0.80–3.30) min only. Conclusions The ring-shaped thread counter traction is simple, effective, lower cost and does not require special devices to obtain repeated counter traction.

ObjectiveNon-randomised studies suggest that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), but EMR might be more cost-effective and safer. This trial compares the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of TEM and EMR for large rectal adenomas.DesignPatients with rectal adenomas ≥3 cm, without malignant features, were randomised (1:1) to EMR or TEM, allowing endoscopic removal of residual adenoma at 3 months. Unexpected malignancies were excluded postrandomisation. Primary outcomes were recurrence within 24 months (aiming to demonstrate non-inferiority of EMR, upper limit 10%) and the number of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital.ResultsTwo hundred and four patients were treated in 18 university and community hospitals. Twenty-seven (13%) had unexpected cancer and were excluded from further analysis. Overall recurrence rates were 15% after EMR and 11% after TEM; statistical non-inferiority was not reached. The numbers of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital were similar (EMR 609±209, TEM 652±188, p=0.16). Complications occurred in 18% (EMR) versus 26% (TEM) (p=0.23), with major complications occurring in 1% (EMR) versus 8% (TEM) (p=0.064). Quality-adjusted life years were equal in both groups. EMR was approximately €3000 cheaper and therefore more cost-effective.ConclusionUnder the statistical assumptions of this study, non-inferiority of EMR could not be demonstrated. However, EMR may have potential as the primary method of choice due to a tendency of lower complication rates and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The high rate of unexpected cancers should be dealt with in further studies.

ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of snare traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the management of circumferential superficial esophageal cancer.MethodsA total of 68 patients who underwent ESD for circumferential superficial esophageal cancer were included in this study. All the patients were divided into two groups based on whether the snare traction was used or not; the snare traction group (S-ESD, group n = 35) and the control group (C-ESD, group n = 33).ResultsThere was no significant difference in the size of the resected area between the groups [21.98 (18.30, 27.00) cm2 vs 24.00 (15.28, 30.72) cm2, P = 0.976]. The snare traction group had a shorter dissection time [92.00 (74.00, 121.00) min vs 110.00 (92.50, 137.00) min, P = 0.017] and a faster resection speed [0.28 ± 0.13 cm2/min vs 0.22 ± 0.11cm2/min, P = 0.040] compared to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, cost, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, curative resection rate, bleeding rate, perforation rate, stricture rate, and recurrence rate (P > 0.05).ConclusionSnare traction-assisted ESD is a safe and efficient approach for the treatment of circumferential superficial esophageal cancer. Its advantages includes shorter procedure so the anesthesia requirement, clear operative filed view, improved mucosal dissection efficiency, simple, and easily accessible equipment.

Endoscopic resection is first-line therapy in the management of superficial neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract, as well as an increasingly viable therapeutic alternative in the resection of selected small deep lesions throughout the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The mainstay of therapy has traditionally been endoscopic snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection. However, recent innovative advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have provided for the ability to resect large superficial lesions and selected subepithelial lesions in en bloc and margin-negative fashion. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art in advanced endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard treatment for rectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the Injection Mucosa Knife (IMK) technique versus the conventional Dual Knife (DK) technique in ESD for rectal LSTs. A total of 229 patients with rectal LSTs were enrolled from four hospitals between June 2020 and June 2025 and were divided into two groups: the IMK group ( n  = 108) and the DK group ( n  = 121). The primary outcome measures included total procedure time, mucosal dissection time, and submucosal dissection rate, while the secondary outcomes encompassed intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as the R0 resection rate. Additionally, the efficacy and safety of the two groups were compared based on tumor size and endoscopic morphology. The IMK group demonstrated significantly shorter total procedure time (median 50 vs. 65 min, P  < 0.001) and mucosal dissection time (median 40 vs. 56 min, P  < 0.001), along with a higher submucosal dissection rate (median 0.12 vs. 0.08 cm²/min, P  < 0.001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative perforation, severe hemorrhage, R0 resection, postoperative bleeding, fever, or pathology between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). Subgroup analyses based on tumor size (2.5 cm and ≥ 2.5 cm) and morphology (LST-G and LST-NG) consistently showed superior efficiency of the IMK technique without compromising safety. The IMK technique significantly improves the efficiency of ESD for rectal LSTs by reducing operative time and enhancing dissection rates, while maintaining comparable safety and outcomes to the conventional DK technique. IMK represents a promising advancement in ESD for rectal lesions.

BackgroundFor endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing.ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO).DesignBO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49).ConclusionsIn terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE.Trial registration numberNCT1871636

Background and aimsConventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.MethodsFlat, 15–50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.Results177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).ConclusionCompared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.Trial registration number NCT04138030

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90–240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.

BackgroundProphylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field may be an easy way to prevent delayed bleeding, a frequent complication after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate if the prophylactic application of a haemostatic gel to the resection field directly after EMR can reduce the rate of clinically significant delayed bleeding events.DesignWe conducted a prospective randomised trial of patients undergoing hot-snare EMR of flat lesions in the duodenum (≥10 mm) and colorectum (≥20 mm) at 15 German centres. Prophylactic clip closure was not allowed, but selective clipping or coagulation could be used prior to randomisation to treat intraprocedural bleeding or for prophylactic closure of visible vessels. Patients were randomised to haemostatic gel application or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was delayed bleeding within 30 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped early due to futility after an interim analysis. The primary endpoint was analysed in 232 patients (208 colorectal, 26 duodenal). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidities and lesion characteristics. Preventive measures, such as selective clipping or coagulation, were applied prior to randomisation in 51.9% of cases, with no difference between groups. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 cases (11.7%; 95% CI 7.1% to 18.6%) after Purastat and in 7 cases (6.3%; 95% CI 3.1% to 12.3%) in the control group (p=0.227), with no difference between colorectal and duodenal subgroups.ConclusionThe application of a haemostatic gel following EMR of large flat lesions in the duodenum and colorectum does not reduce the rate of delayed bleeding.

BackgroundProphylactic clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection reduces delayed bleeding in large and proximal colon lesions; however, evidence regarding its effectiveness in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is lacking.ObjectiveTo compare clinically significant delayed bleeding rates between a clip closure and a control group for flat and sessile 20–50 mm colorectal polyps following ESD.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at four Japanese institutions randomly assigned patients to closure or non-closure groups. Significant postprocedural bleeding (haematochezia) was classified as severe (requiring endoscopic haemostasis or blood transfusion in patients with haemoglobin levels <70 g/L or haemorrhagic shock) or mild.ResultsThe closure and control groups comprised 150 and 149 cases in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 142 and 141 cases in the per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. Rates of complete clip closure were 88.7% (ITT) and 93.0% (PP). The ITT analysis revealed delayed bleeding rates of 6.7% and 20.1% (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.60; p<0.001; absolute risk difference (ARD): 13.5%; 95% CI: 5.6% to 20.9%) and severe delayed bleeding rates of 1.3% and 8.7% (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.64; p=0.003; ARD: 7.4%; 95% CI: 2.2% to 12.4%) in the closure and control groups, respectively. These differences were confirmed in the PP analysis. Delayed perforation was not observed, and the post-ESD coagulation syndrome rate was not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified prophylactic clip closure as a significant independent preventive factor for both delayed bleeding (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.50; p<0.001) and severe delayed bleeding (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76; p=0.015).ConclusionsProphylactic clip closure, successfully achieved in approximately 90% of cases, reduced the delayed bleeding rate after resection of colorectal polyps measuring 20–50 mm.Trial registration numberUMIN000043675.