Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a less invasive local treatment for diseases throughout the gastrointestinal tract.

To develop an integrated management protocol and analyze its effects on surgical outcomes and mental health of patients after ESD.

The study population consisted of patients undergoing ESD before implementation of integrated management and those undergoing ESD by the same pool of surgeons after implementation of integrated management.

The management group exhibited shortened fasting time and length of hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The management group exhibited a higher incidence rate of postoperative complications than the control group (3 cases vs 11 cases; P = 0.043). The management group exhibited a lower uncertainty score for disease knowledge compared to the control group 12 h after surgery (P < 0.05). The management group gave more scores on the domains of patient familiarity to the responsible nurses, professional skills of responsible nurses, and general evaluation compared to the control group. The management group had a higher total score of patient satisfaction towards the responsible nurses in term of health care than the control group (P < 0.01). The management group exhibited lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Self-Rating Depression Scale scores compared to the control group 12 h after surgery (P < 0.01).

The study demonstrates that integrated management could improve surgical outcomes and mental health of patients undergoing ESD.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains demanding due to technical difficulties and high risk of perforation. Most of the reported traction methods are initiated after creating a mucosal flap, which is time consuming. To obtain a good visualization at the mucosal incision stage, we developed the early clip-with-line (ECL) method. This method was started immediately after injection of sodium hyaluronate solution into the submucosal layer. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and the safety of the ECL method for colorectal ESD.

We retrospectively analyzed all cases of colorectal ESDs (41 cases in total) performed from January 2017 to February 2019 in our institution. From January 2017 to August 2018, 27 of these cases were performed using conventional (non-ECL) ESDs, while from September 2018 onwards, the remaining 14 cases were performed using the ECL method. Retrospective comparison between the ECL group and the non-ECL group was conducted in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and adverse events.

There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between two groups. Procedure time (median [range]) was significantly shorter in the ECL group than in the non-ECL group (66 [29-131] min vs 90 [30-410] min; P = 0.03). As for adverse events, no case of perforation occurred in the ECL group, whereas perforation was observed in 7.4% (2/27) cases in the non-ECL group (no significant difference).

Early clip-with-line method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection reduced procedure time.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model.

This study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Eight trainees had an experience of over 1000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range 10.0-31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range 10.0-38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range 5.0-31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25-22.30; P = 0.024).

This study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

With the widespread application of screening endoscopy and development of endoscopy-related instruments, more and more gastrointestinal cancers are detected in an early stage. Endoscopic resection is a preferred method for selected patients with superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard method for its ability to perform en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. ESD can be performed in a conventional or tunneling way, and the latter is termed endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD).

In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review on ESTD for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. We mainly focus on technical details, safety and efficacy of ESTD for esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform ESTD.

The best indication of ESTD is large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (circumferential extent > 1/3 and longitudinal extent > 3 cm). Although ESTD has shown promising primary results for superficial gastric and colorectal neoplastic lesions, it is technically difficult and should be attempted only in experienced hands. Post-treatment stricture is a major concern, and preventive measures are recommended for patients with high risk of post-ESTD stricture.

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc removal of colorectal neoplasms regardless of size. Submucosal fibrosis is a significant factor for technical difficulty and poor outcomes. We assessed the predictive factors for severe submucosal fibrosis and the ESD outcomes. Patients and methods  Patients undergoing ESD from January 2006 to September 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The degree of submucosal fibrosis was classified into three types: no fibrosis (F0), mild fibrosis (F1), and severe fibrosis (F2). F0 and F1 cases were grouped as non-severe fibrosis for comparison with the severe fibrosis group. Predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis and ESD outcomes were evaluated. Results  ESD was performed in 524 lesions (60 % male; mean age, 67.8 years). Eighty lesions with severe fibrosis (15.3 %) were observed. The overall en bloc resection rate and curative resection rate were 94.3 % and 77.7 %, respectively. Rates of en bloc resection (91.2 % vs. 94.8 %, P  = 0.2) and perforation (7.5 % vs. 5.6 %, P  = 0.45) were no different between severe fibrosis and non-severe fibrosis groups. However, incidences of non-curative resection and low resection speed were significantly higher in the severe fibrosis group. Among protruding lesions, tumor height and volume were significantly greater in the severe counterparts. A diameter ≥ 40 mm, endoscopic finding of the tumor beyond fold, and fold convergence were independent risk factors for severe fibrosis. Conclusions  Severe submucosal fibrosis is a significant risk factor for non-curative resection and a long procedural time. Tumor size and morphology might help to predict the severity of fibrosis.