Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Hybrid Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (Short-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection).
Yang, Dennis; Hasan, Muhammad K; Jawaid, Salmaan; Singh, Gurdeep; Xiao, Yasi; Khalaf, Mai; Tomizawa, Yutaka; Sharma, Neil S; Draganov, Peter V; Othman, Mohamed O.
Afiliación
  • Yang D; Center for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Hasan MK; Center for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Jawaid S; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Singh G; Internal Medicine, AdventHealth Medical Group, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Xiao Y; Center for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Khalaf M; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Tomizawa Y; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  • Sharma NS; Division of Interventional Oncology and Surgical Endoscopy (IOSE), Parkview Cancer Institute, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA.
  • Draganov PV; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
  • Othman MO; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 2024 Jun 24.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38912697
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which utilizes ESD knife along with snare-based resection, has been developed to overcome the technical complexity of conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcomes of H-ESD vs C-ESD for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥20 mm in size.

METHODS:

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare H-ESD and C-ESD (Short-ESD trial). Patients with colorectal lesions between 20 and 50 mm in size were randomly assigned (11) to H-ESD or C-ESD. Primary outcome was procedure time/speed. Secondary outcomes were en bloc and complete (R0) resection rates and adverse event rates.

RESULTS:

A total of 89 patients (median age 63 years; 49.3% women) with the median polyp size of 30 mm underwent H-ESD (n = 40) and C-ESD (n = 49). The mean procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (41.1 ± 16.3 vs 54.3 ± 28.2 minutes; P = 0.007). The en bloc and R0 resection rates trended lower in the H-ESD vs C-ESD groups (77.5% vs 87.8%; P = 0.26% and 72.5% vs 79.6%; P = 0.46) without reaching statistical significance. Adverse event rate was similar between H-ESD and C-ESD (10% vs 8.2%; P = 1.00).

DISCUSSION:

Both H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for resection of large colorectal lesions. H-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time. H-ESD may represent a viable alternative to C-ESD, with the main advantage being easy applicability of a snare-based technique for colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further define the most suitable lesions for H-ESD, as to optimize efficiency and safety without compromising resection outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT NCT05347446.

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Am J Gastroenterol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Am J Gastroenterol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos