The usefulness of traction-assisted endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary early tumors(with video).

Objective Endoscopic papillectomy(EP) is a minimally invasive treatment for early ampullary tumors. However, the optimal method is unclear. The aim of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted EP treatments for ampullary early tumors.Methods We retrospective analyzed the patients with ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma underwent endoscopic papillectomy between January 2010 and August 2023, including patient characteristics, lesion size, papilla type, pathological diagnosis and lesion surrounding conditions, en-bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, complications, recurrences.Results During the study period, a total of 106 patients with ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma underwent EP. The number of patients in traction group (clip combined with dental floss traction, CDT-EP) and non-traction group (hot snare papillectomy, HSP or endoscopic mucosal resection, EMR) were 45 and 61 respectively. The traction group has a higher en-bloc resection rate and complete resection rate than the non-traction group (92.86% vs. 68.85%, p = 0.003; 90.48% vs. 60.66%, p = 0.001), and the procedure time is slightly shorter[(1.57 ± 1.93)min vs. (1.98 ± 1.76)min, p = 0.039]. The complications and recurrence in the traction group were lower than those in the non-traction group (7.14% vs. 19.72%, p = 0.076; 7.14% vs. 11.78%, p = 0.466), and all complications were successfully treated by endoscopy or conservative medical treatment. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics, papilla type, pathological diagnosis and lesion surrounding conditions (p > 0.050), but there were differences in lesion size[(13 ± 1.09)mm vs. (11 ± 1.65)mm, p = 0.002]. The recurrence rate of the traction group is lower than that of the non-traction group, but the difference is not significant(7.14% vs. 13.11%, p = 0.335), and the non-traction group mainly has early recurrence. Further analysis shows that the size of the lesion, whether en-bloc resection or not, and the method of resection as independent risk factors for incomplete resection (OR = 1.732, p = 0.031; OR = 3.716, p = 0.049; OR = 2.120, p = 0.027).Conclusions CDT- EP, HSP and EMR are all suitable methods for the treatment of ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma. Assisted traction technology can reduce the operation difficulty of large and difficult to expose lesions, thereby improving the efficacy and safety of EP.

Usefulness of the combined orthodontic rubber band and clip method for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Effective traction is an important prerequisite for successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The combined orthodontic rubber band (ORB) and clip method was effective in colorectal cancer ESD. To date, the method was not reported in gastric ESD. This study aimed to investigate its efficacy and safety for gastric neoplasms ESD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of 118 patients with gastric neoplasms treated by ESD from November 2020 to April 2022, 43 by ORB-ESD and 75 by the conventional ESD. The primary outcome measure was the ESD procedure time. Clinical data on efficacy and safety were also collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) matched the patients in both groups. RESULTS: PSM successfully matched 31 pairs of patients. The ORB-ESD operation time was shorter (median [interquartile range], 35 [30-48] vs. 49 [40-70] min, P < 0.001) and dissection speed was higher (median [interquartile range], 22.6 [14.4-29.3] vs. 13.5 [9.6-17.9] mm2/min, P < 0.001) than in the conventional ESD. The groups were similar in muscular injury rate, frequency and time of use of thermal hemostatic forceps, postoperative adverse events, en bloc resection, and R0 resection rate (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the conventional ESD, ORB-ESD significantly reduced the procedure time and increased the dissection speed, proving beneficial to gastric ESD.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: A randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is frequently used for the removal of colorectal neoplasms. However, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing EMR is debatable. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether antimicrobial prophylaxis is crucial in the perioperative period of EMR, especially for 10- to 20-mm lesions in this setting. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-four patients were randomized equally into 2 groups, the antibiotic (cefixime) group and the control group. The occurrence of adverse events was examined at 1 to 3 days after EMR. Plasma levels of inflammatory markers were analyzed at pre-operation, 1 day post-operation and 3 days post-operation. Blood samples collected at 1 day post-operation were used for culture. RESULTS: A total of 264 and 268 polyps were removed by EMR in the antibiotic group and the control group, respectively. There were 5 cases of fever, with 2 in the antibiotic group and 3 in the control group. In the antibiotic group, 12 patients had abdominal pain and 10 suffered bleeding, whereas in the control group, abdominal pain and bleeding were observed in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with fever or the incidences of postoperative complications between the groups. No significant differences between the groups were reported in plasma levels of white blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein or procalcitonin at pre-operation or post-operation. No patients provided positive blood cultures. CONCLUSIONS: The use the prophylactic antibiotics for EMR procedures in the perioperative period is no longer required when the lesions are 10 to 20 mm in size.

Orthodontic Rubber Band-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Efficient Method for Treating Superficial Colorectal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a complex operation. Effective traction is crucial. We have successfully used an orthodontic rubber band (ORB) combined with the clip traction method to assist ESD (ORB-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to describe the method and to compare the efficacy and safety of ORB-ESD versus conventional ESD in the treatment of superficial colorectal tumors. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with superficial colorectal tumor (with diameter ≥ 20 mm) who received either ORB-ESD (n = 34) or conventional ESD (n = 90) between January 2019 and September 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the clinical data of 31 pairs of patients in each group. RESULTS: Operation time was significantly shorter for ORB-ESD than for conventional ESD (34.5 minutes vs. 56 minutes, P ≤ 0.001). In the propensity-matched cohorts, the operation time remained significantly shorter in the ORB-ESD patients (35 minutes vs. 50 minutes, P = 0.001). Postoperative adverse events, en bloc resection rate, and R0 resection rate were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05), both before and after propensity score matching. In the ORB subgroup analysis, the trainee and expert ESD operation times were similar (37 (26-53) vs. 33.5 (26-37) minutes, respectively; P = 0.274). CONCLUSION: ORB-ESD appears to be an effective technique for ESD of colorectal cancer. Our findings need to be confirmed in large prospective multicenter studies.