Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 May;89(5):1045-1053.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.022. Epub 2019 Feb 1.

The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

Affiliations
Comparative Study

The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

Takahito Takezawa et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May.

Abstract

Background and aims: Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is more difficult than rectal ESD because of poor maneuverability of the endoscope due to physiologic flexion, peristalsis, and respiratory movements. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of the pocket-creation method (PCM) for colonic ESD compared with the conventional method (CM) regardless of lesion shape or location.

Methods: A total of 887 colorectal lesions were treated by ESD. Of 887 lesions, 271 rectal lesions, 72 lesions smaller than 20 mm in diameter, and 1 non-neoplastic lesion were excluded. This is a retrospective chart review of the remaining 543 colon lesions in 512 patients. We divided them into the PCM group (n = 280) and the CM group (n = 263). The primary outcome was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection (en bloc resection with negative margin), adverse events, dissection time (in minutes), and dissection speed (in mm2/min).

Results: The PCM group achieved a significantly higher en bloc resection rate (PCM, 100% [280/280], vs CM, 96% [253/263]; P < .001) and R0 resection rate (91% [255/280] vs 85% [224/263], respectively; P = .033) than the CM group. Dissection time was similar (69.5 ± 44.4 vs 78.7 ± 62.6 minutes, P = .676). Dissection speed was significantly faster with the PCM than with the CM (23.5 ± 11.6 vs 20.9 ± 13.6 mm2/min, P < .001). The incidence of adverse events was similar (perforation, 2% vs 4% [P = .152], and delayed bleeding, 2% vs 1% [P = .361]).

Conclusions: Colonic ESD using the PCM significantly improves the rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection and facilitates rapid dissection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms