Abstract:Background and study aims
Complex colorectal polyps or those positioned in difficult anatomic locations are an endoscopic therapeutic challenge. Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (UESD) is a potential technical solution to facilitate efficient polyp removal. In addition, endoscopic tissue retraction has been confined to limited methods of varying efficacy and complexity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a unique UESD technique for removing complex polyps using double-balloon-a… Show more
“…3, ▶ Fig. 4) [9]. However, the DEIP technique is in its early adoption stages and has only been described in a case report and a small case series of porcine models [8,10].…”
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.
“…3, ▶ Fig. 4) [9]. However, the DEIP technique is in its early adoption stages and has only been described in a case report and a small case series of porcine models [8,10].…”
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.
“…The dental oss traction cannot be adjusted freely when deep in the colon and is assistant-demanding [6] . Magnetic anchor and balloon-assisted methods require special devices [7,8] .…”
Background Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically demanding but effective treatment for superficial neoplasms. We conducted a study to compare the effectiveness and safety of inner traction facilitated ESD using rubber band and clip (RAC-ESD) with conventional ESD.Methods We retrospectively evaluated 622 consecutive patients underwent colorectal ESD between January 2016 and December 2019. To overcome selection bias, we used propensity score matching (1:4) between RAC-ESD and conventional ESD. The frequency of en bloc resections, R0 resections, curative resections, procedure speed and complications were evaluated.Results After propensity score matching, 35 patients were included in RAC-ESD group and 140 were included in conventional ESD group. RAC-ESD resulted in a significant increase in resection speed (0.14 vs. 0.09 cm2/min; P=0.003). There were no significant differences in en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates between two groups. In subgroup analysis, the resection speed of RAC-ESD was significantly higher than conventional ESD when the lesions were equal to or larger than 2cm, macroscopically presenting as lateral spreading tumor, and located in transverse colon to ascending colon.Conclusions RAC-ESD is safe and effective in treating colorectal neoplasms, especially in lesions presenting particular difficulty.
“…The original DEIP device provided stability and limited traction using the fore-balloon of the device but lacked the flexible grasper capabilities of the novel DEIP-FG. 5 , 6 Figure 1 Double-balloon endolumenal intervention platform with flexible grasper. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The original DEIP device provided stability and limited traction using the fore-balloon of the device but lacked the flexible grasper capabilities of the novel DEIP-FG. 5,6 In this video (Video 1, available online at www. giejournal.org), we demonstrate the usefulness of this novel technique in the removal of a 6-cm polyp in the sigmoid colon, 30 cm from the dentate line.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
