Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty
- PMID: 28924587
- PMCID: PMC5595579
- DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113566
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty
Abstract
Background and study aim: The role of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is standardized in Japan and East Asia, but technical difficulties hinder its diffusion. The aim was to identify predictors of difficulty for each neoplasm type.
Methods: A competent operator performed all procedures. ESD difficulty was defined as: en bloc with a slow speed (< 0.07 cm 2 /min; 30 × 30 mm neoplasm in > 90 min), conversion to endoscopic mucosal resection, or resection abandonment. Pre- and intraoperative difficulty variables were defined according to standard criteria, and evaluated separately for the rectum and colon. Difficulty predictors and gradients were evaluated by the multivariate logistic regression model.
Results: A total of 140 ESDs were included: 110 in the colon and 30 in the rectum. Neoplasms were laterally spreading tumors - granular type (LST-G) in 85 cases (61 %); the median longer axis was 30 mm (range 15 - 180 mm); a scar was present in 15 cases (11 %). ESD en bloc resection and difficulty rates were 85 % (n = 94) and 35 % (n = 39) in the colon, and 73 % (n = 22) and 50 % (n = 15) in the rectum ( P = 0.17 and 0.28, respectively). The scar was the only preoperative predictor of difficulty in the rectum (odds ratio [OR] 12.3, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.27 - 118.36), whereas predictors in the colon were: scar (OR 12.7, 95 %CI 1.15 - 139.24), LST - nongranular type (NG) (OR 10.5, 95 %CI 1.20 - 55.14), and sessile polyp morphology (OR 3.1, 95 %CI 1.18 - 10.39). Size > 7 - ≤ 12 cm 2 (OR 0.20, 95 %CI 0.06 - 0.74) and operator experience > 120 procedures (OR 0.19, 95 %CI 0.04 - 0.81) were predictors for a easy procedure. No intraoperative predictors of difficulty were identified in the rectum, whereas predictors in the colon were: severe submucosal fibrosis (OR 21.9, 95 %CI 2.11 - 225.64), ineffective submucosal exposure by gravity countertraction (OR 12.3, 95 %CI 2.43 - 62.08), and perpendicular submucosal dissection approach (OR 5.2, 95 %CI 1.07 - 25.03). When experience was /= 90, preoperative gradient of colonic ESD difficulty was the highest for LST-NGs (scar positive and negative up to 47 % and 20 %, respectively), intermediate for sessile polyps with scar (up to 23 %), and the lowest for LST-Gs (< 8 %). Different difficulty gradients between neoplasm types persisted with increasing experience: LST-NG rate up to 14 % after 120 procedures.
Conclusions: Colonic and rectal ESD difficulty has qualitative differences. Preoperative predictors should be considered to identify the difficulty gradient of each neoplasm type and the appropriate setting for ESD.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
Similar articles
-
Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors.Surg Endosc. 2014 Oct;28(10):2959-65. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3558-y. Epub 2014 May 23. Surg Endosc. 2014. PMID: 24853849
-
Retrospective study of technical aspects and complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum.Endoscopy. 2010 Sep;42(9):714-22. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255654. Epub 2010 Aug 30. Endoscopy. 2010. PMID: 20806155
-
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinical outcomes and predictors of technical difficulty.J Dig Dis. 2022 Apr;23(4):228-236. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.13091. Epub 2022 Apr 8. J Dig Dis. 2022. PMID: 35297187
-
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Technical advantages compared to endoscopic mucosal resection and minimally invasive surgery.Dig Endosc. 2014 Jan;26 Suppl 1:52-61. doi: 10.1111/den.12196. Epub 2013 Nov 5. Dig Endosc. 2014. PMID: 24191896 Review.
-
AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;17(1):16-25.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.041. Epub 2018 Aug 2. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. PMID: 30077787 Review.
Cited by
-
Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends.Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Jan 20;8:728704. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.728704. eCollection 2021. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022. PMID: 35127735 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Efficacy and suitable indication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a balloon-assisted endoscope.JGH Open. 2019 Aug 19;4(2):185-190. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12247. eCollection 2020 Apr. JGH Open. 2019. PMID: 32280763 Free PMC article.
-
Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an endoscopic submucosal dissection knife: a retrospective multicenter study.Endosc Int Open. 2020 May;8(5):E611-E616. doi: 10.1055/a-1127-3092. Epub 2020 Apr 17. Endosc Int Open. 2020. PMID: 32355878 Free PMC article.
-
Conventional versus hybrid knife endoscopic submucosal dissection in large colorectal laterally spreading tumors: A propensity score analysis.Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2023 Mar-Apr;29(2):111-118. doi: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_373_22. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2023. PMID: 36588365 Free PMC article.
-
Diode Laser-Can It Replace the Electrical Current Used in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection?Clin Endosc. 2021 Jul;54(4):555-562. doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.229. Epub 2021 Jan 13. Clin Endosc. 2021. PMID: 33435658 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y et al.JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:417–434. - PubMed
-
- Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T et al.Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:829–854. - PubMed
-
- Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Nishiyama S et al.Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:427–435. - PubMed
-
- Sato K, Ito S, Kitagawa T et al.Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2959–2965. - PubMed
-
- Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N et al.Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy. 2009;41:679–683. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous