The rising number of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including esophageal, gastric, and colorectal tumors, makes it essential to develop more effective treatment methods. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a popular intervention due to its ability to resect the tumor completely and prevent local recurrence. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of ESD with rubber bands and clips (ESD-RBC) in the treatment of various GI tumors. We systematically searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane databases until April 20, 2024. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies focusing on ESD-RBC alone or compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD) in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan and R software. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving R0 resection and en bloc resection (OR: 1.99 with 95% CI [1.17 to 3.36], P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) and (OR: 5.98 with 95% CI [2.30 to 15.55]; P = 0.0002, I2 = 0%), respectively. ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed compared to C-ESD (MD: 8.48 mm2/min with 95% CI [3.12 to 13.83]; P < 0.00001, I2 = 89%) and shortened the procedure duration (MD: - 11.94 min with 95% CI [- 21.98 to - 1.91]; P < 0.00001, I2 = 7%). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of bleeding and delayed bleeding (OR: 1.08 with 95% CI [0.37 to 3.14]; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%) and (OR: 0.69 with 95% CI [0.20 to 2.33]; P = 0.55, I2 = 0%), respectively. The proportion of R0 resection using ESD-RBC was 90%, with 95% CI [65% to 98%] and I2 = 78%. The en bloc resection rate was 96%, with 95% CI [95% to 97%], and I2 = 0%. In addition, the raw mean (MRAW) of resection speed was 24.25 mm2/min, with 95% CI [13.48 to 35.02], and I2 = 99.4%. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving en bloc resection and R0 resection with a comparable risk of bleeding and delayed bleeding. In addition, ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed and shortened the procedure duration.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is a technically demanding procedure with a steep learning curve. In Japan, the National Cancer Center Hospital allows overseas doctors to participate in hands-on training. We aimed to assess the colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection performance and learning curve of an endoscopist who participated in hands-on training.

In this retrospective analysis using a prospectively collected database, 100 consecutive superficial colorectal tumors from 100 patients treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection by a colorectal surgeon between January 2020 and May 2024 were included. The cases were grouped into three learning periods: phase I (the initial 30 cases under local expert supervision before training in Japan), phase II (the middle 30 cases), and phase III (the last 40 cases). The primary outcome was resection speed.

The median resection speed was 5, 11.7, and 13.2 cm2/h in phases I, II, and III, respectively. In matched data, the resection speeds in phases II and III were higher than that in phase I (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). En bloc and R0 resection rates were 99% and 95%, respectively. The en bloc resection, R0 resection, and complication rates were not different between phases. Cumulative sum analysis of the resection speed revealed that proficiency was achieved after 36 cases.

An endoscopist who underwent a tutored approach and hands-on training in Japan achieved the proficiency benchmarks for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection after 36 cases. However, the endoscopist's extensive experience before training may contribute to excellent outcomes.

The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation.

All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored.

106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03).

Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging for appendicular lesions. We report the outcomes of ESD in this context.

We collected data of ESD procedures for appendiceal neoplasia in a multicenter prospective registry. Main study endpoints were R0, en-bloc, and curative resection rates and adverse event rate.

One hundred twelve patients were included, 47 (42%) with previous appendectomy. Fifty-six (50%) were Toyonaga type 3 lesions (15 [13.4%] postappendectomy). En-bloc and R0 resection rates were 86.6% and 80.4%, respectively, with no significant difference associated with different grades of appendiceal invasion (P = .9 and P = .4, respectively) or previous appendectomy (P = .3 for both). The curative resection rate was 78.6%. Additional surgery was performed in 16 cases (14.3%), including 10 (62.5%) Toyonaga type 3 lesions (P = .04). This included the treatment of 5 cases (4.5%) of delayed perforation and 1 acute appendicitis.

ESD for appendicular lesions is a potentially safer and effective alternative to surgery for a significant proportion of patients.

Colonoscopy has been shown to be an effective modality to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) development. CRC reduction is achieved by detecting and removing adenomas, which are precursors of CRC. Most colorectal polyps are small and do not pose a significant challenge for trained and skilled endoscopists. However, up to 15% of polyps are considered "difficult", potentially causing life-threatening complications. A difficult polyp is defined as any polyp that is challenging for the endoscopist to remove owing to its size, shape, or location. Advanced polypectomy techniques and skills are required to resect difficult colorectal polyps. There were various polypectomy techniques for difficult polyps such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater EMR, Tip-in EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or endoscopic full-thickness resection. The selection of the appropriate modality depends on the morphology and endoscopic diagnosis. Several technologies have been developed to aid endoscopists in performing safe and effective polypectomies, especially complex procedures such as ESD. These advances include video endoscopy system, equipment assisting in advanced polypectomy, and closure devices/techniques for complication management. Endoscopists should know how to use these devices and their availability in practice to enhance polypectomy performance. This review describes several useful strategies and tips for managing difficult colorectal polyps. We also propose the stepwise approach for difficult colorectal polyps.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Video 1Dissections of appendiceal lesions using A-TRACT-2.

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.

Endoscopic transcecal appendectomy (ETA) has been reported as a minimally invasive alternative procedure for lesions involving the appendiceal orifice. The aim of this case series study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ETA for lesions at the appendiceal orifice.

This retrospective study included consecutive patients with appendiceal orifice lesions who underwent ETA between December 2018 and March 2021. The primary outcome was technical success. The secondary outcomes included postoperative adverse events, postoperative hospital stay, and recurrence.

13 patients with appendiceal orifice lesions underwent ETA during the study period. The median lesion size was 20 mm (range 8-50). Lesions morphologies were polypoid lesions (n = 5), laterally spreading tumors (n = 4), and submucosal lesions (n = 4). Technical success with complete resection was achieved in all 13 cases. There were no postoperative bleeding, perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess. The median length of hospital stay after ETA was 8 days (range 6-18). There was no tumor recurrence during a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-28).

ETA is feasible, safe, and effective for complete resection of appendiceal orifice lesions. Larger, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further assess this technique.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows an "en bloc" resection with safety margins (R0 resection) regardless of the size of the lesion. However, while R0 brings a real benefit for the patient, it is not considered sufficient by many experts to justify the technical difficulties and the longer procedure time compared to piecemeal mucosectomy. The aims of this review are to provide several technical and strategical tips to help you save time and become comfortable during ESD procedures. ESD is divided into several intertwined phases: injection, incision, access to the submucosae, and submucosal dissection itself. During injection there are some mistakes that should not be made: a superficial injection, or on the contrary, a too deep injection. A good needle and good injection technique are mandatory. Some techniques, such as repeated injection or prolonged lifting solution, can help maintain the lift. After this step, mucosal incision can be made, taking care to have a good margin to allow an R0 resection. Starting the mucosal incision from a small point allows calibration of the depth of the incision and then obtaining a nice incision. Trimming is also very important to widen submucosal access. Then comes the submucosal dissection itself. Strategies such as the tunnel strategy or the pocket creation method can help to facilitate dissection, but more importantly, traction systems have become unavoidable, especially in the stomach and colon. Most common complications are bleeding and perforation, and they usually can be managed endoscopically.

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of en-bloc resection of neoplastic colorectal lesions which is less invasive compared to surgical resection. Lesion stratification, architecture recognition and estimation of depth of invasion are crucial for patient selection. Expert endoscopists have integrated a variety of classification systems including Paris, lateral spreading tumor (LST), narrow band imaging (NBI), international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) and Japanese NBI expert team (JNET) in their day-to-day practice to enhance lesion detection accuracy. Major societies recommend ESD for LST-non granular (NG), Kudo-VI type, large depressed and protruded colonic lesions with shallow submucosal invasion. Chance of submucosal invasion enhances with increased depth as well as tumor location and size. In comparison to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD has a lowerl recurrence rate and higher curative resection rate, making it superior for larger colonic lesions management. Major complications such as bleeding and perforation could be seen in up to 11% and 16% of patients, respectively. In major Western countries, performing ESD is challenging due to limited number of expert providers, lack of insurance coverage, and unique patient characteristics such as higher BMI and higher percentage of previously manipulated lesions.

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established and common treatment for intramucosal colorectal cancer in Japan. However, colorectal ESD is technically more difficult to perform than esophageal and gastric ESD, and some lesions, such as fibrotic lesions, are difficult to dissect by endoscopy. Several techniques, such as the pocket-creation method and laparoscopically assisted endoscopic polypectomy, have been utilized for challenging targets. In recent years, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using full-thickness resection devices have mainly been performed in Western countries. We have used laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery for colorectal tumors (LECS-CR) since 2011 for the challenging treatment of colorectal ESD. Improvements in ESD techniques have resulted in an increase in the literature on EFTR, and LECS-CR may be considered an effective endoscopic technique for colorectal ESD in the future.

In Western countries, debates between ESD vs piece-meal EMR as the best treatment for large colorectal adenomas persist regarding the difficulty of ESD the colon, and the safety and relatively good results of piece-meal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Pocket-creation method (PCM) and double-clip countertraction (DCT) are two strategies recently published to facilitate ESD in this challenging situation.

This is a randomized animal study to compare PCM and DCT strategies for colonic ESD on ex vivo models (bovine colon) performed by 3 operators novice in ESD. Hybridknife type T was used to inject normal saline tinted with a small amount of blue dye in all procedures. Randomization was stratified according to the use of gravity assist. Primary endpoint was the difference in resection speed between PCM and DCT strategies.

Resection speed was significantly higher in the DCT group than in the PCM group (56.3 vs. 31.6 mm²/min, p = 0.01). Technical success rate, defined as en bloc resection in under 60 min, was significantly better in the DCT group than in the PCM group (100% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.024), perforation rate was lower (0% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.012), and difficulty score was better (2.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.0001) as was procedure duration (24.2 vs. 40.2 min, p < 0.0001).

DCT was superior to PCM for ESD in our validated bovine colon model. This strategy is inexpensive, easy to use and adaptive. It might facilitate the widespread use of colonic ESD in Western countries and change Western ideas regarding the use of colonic ESD compared with piece-meal EMR for large benign lesions.

Background and study aims  Sessile serrated lesions (SSL) are major precursor lesions of serrated pathway cancers, and appropriate treatment may prevent interval colorectal cancer. Studies have reported the outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for SSL; however, there are insufficient reports on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the characteristics and outcomes of SSL and compared them to those of non-SSL in ESD. Patients and methods  We reviewed 370 consecutive cases in 322 patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2016 and March 2020 at our hospital. There were 267 0-IIa lesions that were stratified into 41 SSL and 226 non-SSL (intramucosal cancer, adenoma) cases. We used propensity matching to adjust for the variances in the factors affecting treatment between the SSL and non-SSL groups. Results  In the baseline cases, young women and proximal colon tumor location were significantly more common in the SSL group. There were no statistically significant differences between the SSL and non-SSL groups in terms of en bloc resection rate (97.6 % vs. 99.6 %; P  = 0.28), R0 resection rate (92.7 % vs. 93.4 %; P  = 0.74), perforation (0 % vs. 0.9 %; P  > 0.99), and postoperative bleeding (2.4 % vs. 1.8 %; P  = 0.56). Thirty-eight pairs were matched using propensity score, and the median dissection speed (12 vs. 7.7 cm ² /h; P  = 0.0095) was significantly faster in the SSL than in the non-SSL group. Conclusions  ESD for SSL was safely performed, and SSL was smoother to remove than non-SSL. ESD might be an acceptable endoscopic treatment option for SSL.