Conventional versus rubber band traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study (with video).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of gastrointestinal tumors, including rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs). However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted ESD for the treatment of small rectal lesions are still debated. AIMS: We conducted a study to compare the efficacy and safety of rubber band traction-assisted ESD (RBT-ESD) to conventional ESD (C-ESD). METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with r-NET treated with ESD between October 2021 and October 2023. Our study assessed differences between the groups in the complete resection rate of lesions, muscular layer injury, surgical complications, operation time, resection speed, time to liquid diet, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, and recurrence rate. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients with r-NETs participated in this study (RBT-ESD group, n = 27; C-ESD group, n = 92). The operation time in RBT-ESD group was shorter than in C-ESD group, but the difference was not statistically significant (16.0 min [9.0-22.0 min] vs. 18.0 min [13.3-27.0 min], P = 0.056). However, the resection speed was significantly faster in the RBT-ESD group (6.7 vs. 4.1 mm2/min, P = 0.005). Furthermore, the RBT-ESD group showed significantly less muscular layer injury (P = 0.047) and faster diet recovery (P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in the complete resection rate, surgical complications, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost, or recurrence rate between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For r-NETs of < 2 cm in size, the RBT method did not significantly shorten the operation time but resulted in faster resection speed, less muscular layer injury, and earlier postoperative recovery to a liquid diet.

Resection speed of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the location of gastric neoplasia: a learning curve using cumulative sum analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is few study evaluating the relationship between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) resection speed and the lesion characteristics of gastric neoplasia. We investigated the learning curve of consecutive ESDs using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. METHODS: A total of 356 ESDs performed by a single endoscopist were grouped chronologically into three learning periods. The ESD procedure was defined to be fast when resection speed was > 9.0 cm2/hour. The CUSUM method was used to assess the number of ESDs required for achieving proficiency and mastery. RESULTS: Mean resection speed was significantly faster in Phase III (15.1 cm2/hour) compared to those in Phase I (9.3 cm2/hour) and II (11.4 cm2/hour) (p < 0.001). Tumors in the stomach's upper and middle third location were significantly associated with difficulty in attaining the fast resection speed (odds ratios, 0.05 and 0.36) compared to the lower third location. The number of ESDs required to achieve a competency for fast resection was 15 for tumors in the lower third of the stomach and 98 for those in the upper/middle third location, respectively. In the lower third location of the tumor, the CUSUM curve revealed that 75 cases were needed to achieve proficiency and 174 cases to achieve mastery. However, mastery was not achieved in ESD for the upper/middle third tumor during the study period. CONCLUSION: The time required to achieve relevant competency in gastric ESD depends on the tumor location.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinical outcomes and predictors of technical difficulty.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) and the factors related to technical difficulty. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs between June 2013 and January 2019 were retrospectively included. Factors associated with difficult ESD procedures (defined as conversion to piecemeal resection or discontinuation of endoscopic procedure), and dissection with a slow speed (<8 mm2 /min), were determined using the logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients with 342 colorectal LSTs (median size 20.0 mm) were enrolled. The proportions of granular (LST-G) and non-granular LST (LST-NG) were 62.9% and 37.1%, respectively. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 89.8% and 81.9%, respectively. The endoscopic procedure was discontinued in four lesions (1.2%), and 31 (9.1%) converted to piecemeal resection because of technical difficulty. Using multivariate analysis, positive non-lifting sign (odds ratio [OR] 19.9, P < 0.001), tumor size ≥20 mm (OR 10.0, P < 0.001), and less experienced endoscopists (OR 3.7, P = 0.005) were independent factors for technically difficult procedure. Positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.7, P = 0.004), lesion size <20 mm (OR 3.7, P < 0.001), LST-NG type (OR 1.8, P = 0.034), and less colorectal ESD experience (OR 1.9, P = 0.016) were independent factors of slow-speed dissection. CONCLUSIONS: ESD was feasible and safe for treating colorectal LSTs. Positive non-lifting sign and tumor ≥20 mm indicated difficult ESD procedures. Technical failure was more likely to occur in lesions resected by less-experienced endoscopists. Dissection speed might be improved with more experienced operators.