RESUMEN
Background/Aims: : Appropriate tissue tension and clear visibility of the dissection area using traction are essential for effective and safe endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In this study, we developed a retractable robot-assisted traction device and evaluated its performance in colorectal ESD. Methods: : An experienced endoscopist performed ESD 18 times on an ex vivo porcine colon using the robot and 18 times using the conventional method. The outcome measures were procedure time, dissection speed, procedure-related adverse events, and blind dissection rate. Results: : Thirty-six colonic lesions were resected from ex vivo porcine colon samples. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in robot-assisted ESD (RESD) than in conventional ESD (CESD) (20.1±4.1 minutes vs 34.3±8.3 minutes, p<0.05). The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the RESD group than in the CESD group (36.8±9.2 mm2/min vs 18.1±4.7 mm2/min, p<0.05). The blind dissection rate was also significantly lower in the RESD group (12.8%±3.4% vs 35.1%±3.9%, p<0.05). In an in vivo porcine feasibility study, the robotic device was attached to a colonoscope and successfully inserted into the proximal colon without damaging the colonic wall, and ESD was successfully performed. Conclusions: : The dissection speed and safety profile improved significantly with the retractable RESD. Thus, our robotic device has the potential to provide simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction during colonic ESD.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for early malignant stomach lesions. However, this procedure is technically demanding and carries a high complication risk. The level of difficulty in performing ESD is influenced by the location of the lesion. In our study, we aimed to investigate and analyze the effectiveness of robot-assisted ESD for lesions situated in challenging locations within the stomach. METHODS: We developed a gastric simulator that could be used to implement various gastric ESD locations. An EndoGel (Sunarrow, Tokyo, Japan) was attached to the simulator for the dissection procedures. Robot-assisted or conventional ESD was performed at challenging or easy locations by two ESD-trainee endoscopists. RESULTS: The procedure time was remarkably shorter for robotic ESD than conventional dissection at challenging locations (6.2 vs. 10.2 min, P < 0.05), mainly due to faster dissection (220.3 vs. 101.9 mm2/min, P < 0.05). The blind dissection rate was significantly lower with robotic ESD than with the conventional method (17.6 vs. 35.2%, P < 0.05) at challenging locations. CONCLUSION: The procedure time was significantly shortened when robot-assisted gastric ESD procedures were performed at challenging locations. Therefore, our robotic device provides simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction for endoscopic submucosal dissection at challenging locations, thereby reducing difficulty of the procedure.
