Impact of Annual Case Volume on Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Outcomes in a Large Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed that ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection; reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort. METHODS: Between September 2019 and September 2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three thousand seven hundred seventy ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc , R0, and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers also achieved a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after propensity score matching, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers. DISCUSSION: Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for resection of ileocecal valve neoplasia: a French retrospective multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation. METHODS: All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored. RESULTS: 106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty.

The environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2) generated by an SBCE procedure. METHODS: Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts. RESULTS: The capsule itself (4 g) accounted for < 6 % of the total product weight. Packaging (43-119 g) accounted for 9 %-97 % of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5 g [4 %-6 %]) and paper instructions (11-50 g [up to 40 %]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20 kgCO2, with 0.04 kgCO2 (0.2 %) attributable to the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2 (94.7 %) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98 kgCO2 to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e. g. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76 % of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63 % would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible. CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions.