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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Aug;92(2):368-379.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.034. Epub 2020 Feb 29.

Prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Takeshi Yamashina et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Background and aims: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recognized as a challenging procedure. Previously, we reported that a new ESD strategy using the pocket-creation method (PCM) is useful for colorectal ESD, but no prospective randomized study has evaluated the efficacy of the PCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCM for colorectal ESD compared with the conventional method (CM).

Methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial at 3 institutions in Japan. Patients with superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions >20 mm predicted to be intramucosal were randomly assigned to undergo ESD using the PCM or CM. Primary outcome was the ESD completion rate defined as completion of colorectal ESD with an en bloc resection using the assigned ESD method without changing to other methods or assisted by other devices.

Results: We analyzed 59 patients with 59 colorectal tumors in the PCM group and 55 in the CM group. The ESD completion rate was significantly higher in the PCM group compared with the CM group (93% [55/59] vs 73% [40/55]; P = .01). En bloc resection rates, R0 resection rates, procedure time, and dissection speed were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusions: Use of the PCM allows the endoscopist to complete the procedure with the intended method more often than the CM with similar clinical outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000024394.).

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types