Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as a salvage option for difficult colorectal conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: When total submucosal dissection is difficult to achieve during conventional colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD), the lesion can be resected by final snaring through salvage hybrid ESD (SH-ESD). This study aimed to examine the outcomes of SH-ESD and identify its indications that could achieve en bloc resection. METHODS: We recruited 1039 consecutive patients with colorectal lesions that underwent ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. C-ESD was attempted thoroughly in 924 lesions (C-ESD group, including 9 lesions in which ESD was discontinued), and SH-ESD was performed owing to some difficulties in 115 lesions (SH-ESD group). Risk factors for incomplete resection by SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation were evaluated using multivariate analysis. The outcomes were compared between cases with remaining undissected submucosa of < 20 mm in diameter in the SH-ESD and C-ESD groups, using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that a procedure time > 80 min and remaining undissected submucosa ≥ 20 mm in diameter were significant risk factors for incomplete resection after SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation. By propensity score matching analysis, procedure time was significantly shorter in the SH-ESD group with remaining undissected submucosa < 20 mm in diameter than in the C-ESD group (71 min vs. 90 min, p = 0.0053), although no significant difference was found in the en bloc resection rate (94% vs. 87%, p = 0.0914). CONCLUSION: SH-ESD can be an alternative surgical method when conventional ESD is difficult to continue in cases in which the remaining undissected submucosa is < 20 mm in diameter.

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions. METHODS: Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate. RESULTS: 1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm. CONCLUSION: The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Hybrid and Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Neoplasms: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which incorporates endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with endoscopic mucosal resection, has been developed to make ESD technically easier. This study aimed to determine if H-ESD is superior to conventional ESD (C-ESD) for small early gastric neoplasms (EGNs). METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial to compare the treatment outcomes of H-ESD and C-ESD (Hybrid-G Trial). Patients with differentiated type intramucosal EGN ≤20 mm in diameter and without ulceration were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that underwent H-ESD or C-ESD. A single multi-functional snare, SOUTEN (ST1850-20, Kaneka, Medix, Tokyo, Japan), was used for H-ESD. The primary outcome was procedure time. Secondary outcomes included mucosal incision time, time and speed of submucosal dissection, curability, and endoscopic procedural adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 39 and 40 patients underwent H-ESD and C-ESD, respectively. The procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (33.16 min vs 62.46 min; H-ESD/C-ESD ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.69; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in mucosal incision time between the 2 groups; the time and speed of submucosal dissection of H-ESD were significantly shorter than those of C-ESD. No difference was observed between the 2 groups in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: H-ESD has significantly shorter procedure time than C-ESD, with high and comparable curability and safety for both H-ESD and C-ESD. H-ESD can be a good option for the endoscopic treatment of small EGNs. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, Numbers: UMIN000041244).

Indications and outcomes of colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter 10-year study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a colorectal lesion resection procedure that includes both planned and salvage procedures. Previous colorectal hybrid ESD studies have involved single institutions or few operators over a short timeframe, and the size for indication has not been established. In this multicentre study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors that met the 30 mm lesion size criterion. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2018, colorectal hybrid ESD was performed for 172 lesions (diameter range, ≥ 20- < 30 mm) at Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between 56 and 116 lesions in planned and salvage groups, respectively. We also compared data between 2008 and 2013 (the first period) and 2014 and 2018 (the second period) to assess operator experience. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups (92.9% vs. 83.6%, respectively). Procedure time was shorter in the planned group (44.5 min) than in the salvage group (72.0 min, p < 0.01). The perforation rate was higher in the salvage group (21.6%) than in the planned group (0%, p < 0.01); however, the perforation rate during snaring in the salvage group was 1.8%. During the second period relative to the first period, we recorded a significantly higher complete en bloc resection rate (95.7% vs. 75.6%, respectively, p < 0.01) and experienced operator rate (75.5% vs. 53.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups during the second period (100% vs. 94.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Colorectal hybrid ESD, especially salvage hybrid ESD performed by experienced operators, is adoptable and safe for lesions with diameters ranging from ≥ 20 to < 30 mm.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: An alternative resection modality for large laterally spreading tumors in the cecum?

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection for large, laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in the cecum is challenging. Here we report on the clinical outcomes of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in large cecal LSTs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with cecal LSTs ≥ 2 cm who underwent ESD or hybrid ESD procedures between January of 2008 and June of 2019. We compared the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes, including procedure time, the en bloc and complete resection rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 27 patients in the ESD group and 35 patients in the hybrid ESD group, respectively. Hybrid ESD was more used for lesions with submucosal fibrosis. No other significant differences were found in patient characteristics between the two groups. The hybrid ESD group had a significantly shorter procedure time compared with the ESD group (27.60 ± 17.21 vs. 52.63 ± 44.202 min, P = 0.001). The en bloc resection rate (77.1% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.677) and complete resection rate (71.4% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.359) of hybrid ESD were relatively lower than that of the ESD group in despite of no significant difference was found. The perforation and post-procedure bleeding rate (2.9% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.684) were similar between the two groups. One patient perforated during the ESD procedure, which was surgically treated. One patient in the hybrid ESD group experienced post-procedure bleeding, which was successfully treated with endoscopic hemostasis. Post-procedural fever and abdominal pain occurred in six patients in the ESD group and five patients in the hybrid ESD group. One patient in the ESD group experienced recurrence, which was endoscopically resected. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that hybrid ESD may be an alternative resection strategy for large cecal LSTs with submucosal fibrosis.

Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which provides a higher en bloc resection rate than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), is considered to be a useful treatment option for large colorectal tumors. However, colorectal ESD is not widely used because of its technical difficulty, risk of complications and time required. To overcome these drawbacks, a simpler modified technique, ESD with snaring (hybrid ESD), has been developed. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal tumors. METHODS: Between September 2008 and June 2016, ESD was carried out on 137 lesions and hybrid ESD on 27 lesions. All hybrid ESD cases were carried out as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases. We retrospectively investigated procedure time, and the rates of en bloc resection, perforation, bleeding, and local recurrence. RESULTS: In the hybrid ESD group, procedure time was shorter compared with the ESD group (108 ± 59.5 min vs 122 ± 72.2 min), but the en bloc resection rate was lower (66.7% vs 94.2%). However, there were no significant differences in procedure time, or in rates of en bloc resection, perforation and bleeding between the two groups. Local recurrence did not develop in any of our cases. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid ESD as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases may be less effective for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. Indication for hybrid ESD may be limited to scheduled treatment from the outset and emergency cases with patients who present unstable vital signs during ESD.

Safe and effective hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection with ALL IN ONE snare in porcine gastric model (with video).

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) using a newly developed ALL IN ONE (AIO) snare. This was a matched control study in a porcine model. Five paired simulated stomach lesions 2-2.5 cm in size were removed by H-ESD using an AIO snare or conventional ESD (C-ESD) using an endoscopic knife. The outcomes of the two procedures were compared, including en-bloc resection rates, procedure times, intraprocedural bleeding volumes, muscular injuries, perforations, thicknesses of the submucosal layer in resected specimens, and stomach defects. All simulated lesions were resected en-bloc. Specimens resected by H-ESD and C-ESD were similar in size (7.68 ± 2.92 vs. 8.42 ± 2.42 cm2; P = 0.676). H-ESD required a significantly shorter procedure time (13.39 ± 3.78 vs. 25.99 ± 4.52 min; P = 0.031) and submucosal dissection time (3.99 ± 1.73 vs. 13.1 ± 4.58 min; P = 0.003) versus C-ESD; H-ESD also yielded a faster dissection speed (241.37 ± 156.84 vs. 68.56 ± 28.53 mm2/min; P = 0.042) and caused fewer intraprocedural bleeding events (0.40 ± 0.55 vs. 3.40 ± 1.95 times/per lesion; P = 0.016) than C-ESD. The thicknesses of the submucosal layer of the resected specimen (1190.98 ± 134.07 vs. 1055.90 ± 151.76 µm; P = 0.174) and the residual submucosal layer of the stomach defect (1607.94 ± 1026.74 vs. 985.98 ± 445.58 µm; P = 0.249) were similar with both procedures. The AIO snare is a safe and effective device for H-ESD and improves the treatment outcomes of gastric lesions by shortening the procedure time.

Significance of rescue hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult colorectal cases.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), in which an incision is made around a lesion and snaring is performed after submucosal dissection, has some advantages in colorectal surgery, including shorter procedure time and preventing perforation. However, its value for rescue resection in difficult colorectal ESD cases remains unclear. This study evaluated the utility of rescue hybrid ESD (RH-ESD). METHODS: We divided 364 colorectal ESD procedures into the conventional ESD group (C-ESD, n=260), scheduled hybrid ESD group (SH-ESD, n=69), and RH-ESD group (n=35) and compared their clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Resection time was significantly shorter in the following order: RH-ESD (149 [90-197] minutes) >C-ESD (90 [60-140] minutes) >SH-ESD (52 [29-80] minutes). The en bloc resection rate increased significantly in the following order: RH-ESD (48.6%), SH-ESD (78.3%), and C-ESD (97.7%). An analysis of factors related to piecemeal resection of RH-ESD revealed that the submucosal dissection rate was significantly lower in the piecemeal resection group (25% [20%-30%]) than in the en bloc resection group (40% [20%-60%]). CONCLUSION: RH-ESD was ineffective in terms of curative resection because of the low en bloc resection rate, but was useful for avoiding surgery.

Outpatient hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection with SOUTEN for early gastric cancer, followed by endoscopic suturing of the mucosal defect: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is becoming more common for early gastric cancer, it requires more advanced techniques and a longer treatment duration than endoscopic mucosal resection. Hybrid ESD using a multifunctional snare (SOUTEN) has been reported to be effective for colorectal lesions, as it can reduce treatment duration. Endoscopic suturing of post-ESD mucosal defects has been reported to reduce the incidence of ESD-related complications. CASE SUMMARY: This study reports outpatient hybrid ESD for early gastric cancer using SOUTEN, followed by endoscopic suturing of post-ESD mucosal defects in an 86-year-old man. On referral for ESD, a 10-mm flat, depressed lesion was found on the posterior wall of the gastric antrum, the depth of which was expected to be mucosal. Given his history of delirium, we performed outpatient endoscopic treatment. The procedure used was hybrid ESD using SOUTEN to reduce the duration of treatment and endoscopic suturing of post-ESD mucosal ESD defects to reduce complications. The procedure time was 62 min and the lesion was completely resected based on histopathological examination, with no reported postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: This safe and useful procedure may be especially important for outpatient endoscopic treatment.

Comparison of the procedure time differences between hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric neoplasms: a study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial (Hybrid-G trial).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely accepted as a local treatment for gastrointestinal tract tumors. As a simplified endoscopic procedure, hybrid ESD (H-ESD) has been performed for colorectal neoplasms in recent times. However, whether H-ESD is superior to conventional ESD (C-ESD) for patients with early gastric neoplasms (EGN) remains unclear. In this trial, we will compare the treatment outcomes of H-ESD and C-ESD. We hypothesize that the procedure time for H-ESD is shorter than that for C-ESD. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial to be conducted beginning in August 2020 at nine institutions in Japan. We will determine if H-ESD is superior to C-ESD in terms of procedure time in patients with EGN diagnosed as macroscopically intramucosal (T1a) differentiated carcinoma ≤ 20 mm in diameter without ulcerative findings according to current Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines. A total of 82 patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to either the C-ESD or the H-ESD group. The primary outcome is ESD procedure time. Secondary outcomes include mucosal incision, time and speed of submucosal dissection, en bloc resection, complete resection, curability, adverse events related to the ESD procedure, extent of dissection before snaring, volume of injection solution, number and time of hemostasis, thickness of the submucosal layer in the resected specimen, and handover to another operator. The stated sample size was determined based on the primary outcome. According to a previous report comparing the procedure times of C-ESD and H-ESD, we hypothesized that H-ESD would provide a 0.2 reduction in logarithmically concerted procedure time (-37%). We estimated that a total of 82 participants were needed to reach a power of 80% for a t-test with a significance level of 0.05 and considering a 10% dropout. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-quality data on the benefits and risks of H-ESD for EGN patients. The results of this study could lead to improved outcomes in patients with EGN undergoing ESD. The results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000041244 . Registered on July 29, 2020.

Endoscopic instruments and techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a less invasive local treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC).Areas covered: Japanese guidelines have recently expanded the endoscopic treatment indications for EGC. ESD is sometimes performed for lesions with a relative indication that has not previously been considered for ESD. ESD procedures are technically difficult, especially for larger and more invasive lesions. Complete resection and accurate histological assessment of EGC lesions are essential to evaluate endoscopic curability. Various endoscopic instruments, including three types of endoscopic knives and specific hemostatic forceps, have been developed, and endoscopic techniques, including the traction method, have been modified to simplify the procedure.Expert opinion: An insulated-tip knife with large tissue contact allows us to perform faster incisions, while a needle-type knife with minimal tissue contact allows us to perform precise incisions. Furthermore, a scissor-type knife with grasping tissues allows us to perform more secure incision. The traction method enables the operator to proceed with submucosal dissection procedures. In cases with small lesions, snaring can be used, as well as knife dissection. Understanding the features of each endoscopic instrument and technique is essential because appropriate selection and usage contribute to successful and safe ESD procedures.

Efficacy and Safety of Complete Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Neoplasia Using a Stepwise Endoscopic Protocol with SOUTEN, a Novel Multifunctional Snare.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A multifunctional snare SOUTEN has a sharp tip at the top of the snare loop that enables incision of the mucosa, dissection of the submucosal layer, and snaring of lesion. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of complete endoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasia using SOUTEN. METHODS: We analyzed the rates of gross en bloc resection and complete resections of 108 consecutive tumors from 69 patients resected by precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (precutting), hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (hybrid), or conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (conventional) using SOUTEN. RESULTS: Out of the 108 tumors, 50 were resected by precutting, 27 were resected by hybrid after attempting precutting, and the remaining 31 were resected by conventional after attempting precutting and hybrid resections. The median tumor sizes were 14.5 mm for precutting, 16.4 mm for hybrid, and 21.1 mm for conventional. The success rate of gross en bloc resection and histological complete resection were 100% and 94.0% for precutting, 96.4% and 96.4% for hybrid, and 100% and 100% for conventional method, respectively. No procedure-related complication occurred. CONCLUSION: By using SOUTEN, precutting and hybrid were successfully performed on 10-30 mm tumors with a shorter procedure time than conventional without major complications.

Efficacy and safety of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rising in prevalence, particularly with the rectal area. This study evaluated and compared the safety and effectiveness of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with those of ESD for rectal NETs and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection. METHODS: A total of 272 consecutive patients who underwent ESD or hybrid ESD for rectal NETs at the Chinese PLA General Hospital in the period from February 2011 to September 2018 were involved in this study. Data were collected from clinical and endoscopic databases. The procedure time, en bloc resection, complete resection, complication, and recurrence rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In the hybrid ESD group were 111 patients (who had 119 lesions between them), with a further 161 patients (164 lesions) in the ESD group. No significance was found in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Hybrid ESD had a significantly shorter mean procedure time than ESD (13.2±8.3 vs. 18.1±9.7 min, P=0.000). Hybrid ESD showed similar en bloc resection (99.2% vs. 98.2%; P=0.373), complete resection (94.1% vs. 90.9%, P=0.641), and postprocedural bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.313) rates to ESD. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that higher histopathological grade was associated with incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal NET, both ESD and hybrid ESD are effective and safe forms of treatment. Hybrid ESD provides an alternative option in the treatment of rectal NETs. Further developments are needed to improve the complete resection rate, especially concerning tumors with higher histopathological grade.

The Evolution of "New Notes," Origins, and Future Directions.

The transformation of the submucosa into a working space provided a paradigm shift for endolumenal endoscopic intervention. The submucosal space can provide an undermining access to the removal of overlying mucosal disease. This space can also provide a protective mucosal barrier accommodating interventions into the deep layers of the gut wall and body cavities, such as the abdomen and mediastinum.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection from a Western perspective: Today's promises and future challenges.

Over the last few years, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in the management of early colorectal neoplasms, particularly in Asian countries where the technique was born. In the Western world, its implementation has been slow and laborious. In this paper, the indications for ESD, its learning model, the available methods to predict the presence of deep submucosal invasion before the procedure and the published outcomes from Asia and Europe will be reviewed. Since ESD has several limitations in terms of learning achievement in the West, and completion of the procedure for the first cases is difficult in our part of the world, a short review on colorectal assisted ESD has been included. Finally, other endoscopic and surgical treatment modalities that are in competition with colorectal ESD will be summarized.