BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard treatment for early gastric cancer. A new multi-functional ESD device was developed to achieve complete ESD with a single device. A metal plate attached to its distal sheath achieves better hemostasis during the procedure than the other needle-knife device, Flush Knife BT®, that has been conventionally used. The aim of this study was to compare the technical outcomes of ESD for early gastric cancer using the Splash M-Knife® with those using the Flush Knife BT.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of the case records of 149 patients with early gastric cancer treated with ESD using the needle-type ESD knives between January 2012 and August 2016 at Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center. Lesions treated with ESD using the Splash M-knife (ESD-M) and the Flush Knife BT (ESD-F) were compared. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for the differences in age, gender, underlying disease, antithrombotic drug use, lesion location, lesion position, macroscopic type, tumor size, presence of ulceration, operator level and types of electrosurgical unit used. The primary endpoint was the requirement to use hemostatic forceps in the two groups. The secondary endpoints of procedure time, en bloc and complete resection rates, and adverse events rates were evaluated for the two groups.ResultsThere were 73 patients in the ESD-M group, and 76 patients in the ESD-F group. Propensity score matching analysis created 45 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between the two groups showed a significantly lower usage rate of hemostatic forceps in the ESD-M group than in the ESD-F group (6.7% vs 84.4%, p < 0.001). Treatment outcomes showed an en bloc resection rate of 100% in both groups; complete resection rate of 95.6% vs 100%, p = 0.49; median procedure time of 74.0 min vs 71.0 min, p = 0.90; post-procedure bleeding of 2.2% vs 2.2%, p = 1, in the ESD-M and ESD-F groups, respectively. There were no perforations in either group.ConclusionsESD-M appeared to reduce the usage of hemostatic forceps during ESD for early gastric cancer without increasing the adverse effects. Thus, it may contribute to a reduction in the total ESD cost.

AIMTo compare the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms using Clutch Cutter (ESD-C) or other knives (ESD-O).METHODSThis was a single-center retrospective study. Gastric neoplasms treated by ESD between April 2016 and October 2017 at Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center were reviewed. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to reduce biases. Covariates included factors that might affect outcomes of ESD, including age, sex, underlying disease, anti-thrombotic drugs use, tumor location, tumor position, tumor size, tumor depth, tumor morphology, tumor histology, ulcer (scar), and operator skill. The treatment outcomes were compared among two groups. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates, and adverse events rates including perforation and delayed bleeding.RESULTSA total of 155 patients were included in this study; 44 pairs were created by propensity score matching. Background characteristics were quite similar among two groups after matching. Procedure time was significantly shorter for ESD-C (median; 49 min) than for ESD-O (median; 88.5 min) (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between ESD-C and ESD-O including en bloc resection rate (100% in both groups), complete resection rate (100% in both groups), curative resection rate (86.4% vs 88.6%, P = 0.730), delayed bleeding (2.3% vs 6.8%, P = 0.62) and perforation (0% in both groups).CONCLUSIONESD-C achieved shorter procedure time without an increase in complication risk. Therefore, ESD-C could become an effective ESD option for gastric neoplasms.

BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of the postoperative stomach (ESD-P) for early gastric cancer (EGC) is considered a technically difficult procedure. However, it is difficult to compare the outcomes of ESD-P and ESD of the non-operative stomach (ESD-N) because their baseline characteristics are different. Therefore, we aimed to compare the technical outcomes of ESD-P with those of ESD-N using a propensity score-matching analysis to compensate for the differences.MethodsThe chart records of 1046 patients with EGC who were treated with ESD between January 2004 and July 2016 at Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center in Japan were reviewed in this retrospective study. Multivariate analyses and propensity score-matching were performed for age, sex, lesion location, lesion size, tumor invasion, tumor size, ulcer (scar), and operator skill. The primary outcome was procedure time. Secondary outcomes were percentages of en bloc, complete, and curative resections, and percentages of adverse events, which were evaluated between the two groups.ResultsForty-one patients were in the ESD-P group and 1005 patients were in the ESD-N group. Propensity score-matching created 41 matched pairs. According to the adjusted comparisons, ESD-P required a significantly longer procedure time (85 min vs 51 min, p < 0.001). Other treatment outcomes showed an en bloc resection rate of 100% for both groups (p = 1) and complete resection rates of 95.1 and 97.6% (p = 1), curative resection rates of 90.2 and 90.2% (p = 1), perforation during ESD rates of 2.4 and 0% (p = 1), and postprocedure bleeding rates of 2.4 and 2.4% (p = 1) for the ESD-P and ESD-N groups, respectively. For the ESD-P group, lesions on the suture line or anastomotic site were significantly associated with longer procedure times (p = 0.038).ConclusionsESD-P was a more time-consuming procedure than ESD-N. However, ESD-P and ESD-N achieved high rates of curative resection with a low rate of adverse events for the treatment of EGC. ESD could be selected as the treatment for EGC even in the postoperative stomach provided that careful attention is given to lesions on the suture line or anastomotic site.

SUMMARY The Clutch Cutter was invented as a scissor-type knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastrointestinal neoplasms. ESD with the scissor-type knife (ESD-S) may be considered a technically easier procedure than ESD with non-scissor-type knives (ESD-NS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the technical outcomes of ESD-S with those of ESD-NS for superficial esophageal cancer. This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients with superficial esophageal cancer treated with ESD between October 2015 and March 2018 at three hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The ESD-S group had 48 patients and the ESD-NS group had 114 patients. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to compensate for the confounding bias between both groups. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to adjust for age, sex, the tumor size, tumor location, tumor depth, degree of tumor circumference, operator level, usage of the traction method, and the sedation method. The primary outcome was the procedure time of the ESD. Secondary outcomes were the rate of en-bloc/complete resection and the rate of complications including perforation, delayed bleeding, and stricture. Propensity score matching analysis provided 36 matched pairs. Median procedure time in the ESD-S group was significantly shorter than that in the ESD-NS group (44.0 min vs. 66.5 min, P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes were similar in both groups (en-bloc resection: 100% vs. 97.2%, P = 1; complete resection: 88.9% vs. 86.1%, P = 1; curative resection: 80.6% vs. 77.8%, P = 1; perforation: 0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.49; delayed bleeding: 0% in both groups; stricture: 2.8% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.61). ESD-S was associated with a shorter procedure time than ESD-NS, without an increase in the incidence of complications. Therefore, the scissor-type knife should be considered as an endo-knife for ESD of superficial esophageal cancers.