The challenge of effectively eliminating air during gastrointestinal endoscopy using ultrasound techniques is apparent. This difficulty arises from the intricacies of removing concealed air within the folds of the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in artifacts and compromised visualization. In addition, the overlap of folds with lesions can obscure their depth and size, presenting challenges for an accurate assessment. Conversely, in intricately folded regions of the gastrointestinal tract, such as the stomach, intestine, and colon, insufficient delivery of air or CO2 into the cavity impedes luminal expansion, hindering the accurate visualization of lesions concealed within the folds. Although this underscores the requirement for substantial airflow, excessive airflow can hinder visualization of bleeding lesions and other abnormalities. Considering these challenges, an ideal endoscopic device would facilitate the observation of lesions without the requirement for air or CO2 delivery whereas, ensuring optimal expansion of the gastrointestinal tract. Recently, transparent gels with specific viscosities have been employed more frequently to address this issue. This review aims to elucidate how these gels address these challenges and provide a solution for enhanced endoscopic visualization.

Gel immersion (GI) endoscopy provides a good visual field in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, its clinical outcomes are poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between esophageal gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (GI-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) to determine the safety and efficacy of GI-ESD.

The data of 71 consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between April 2021 and March 2023 at a Japanese tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. GI was achieved using an additional irrigation tube. The treatment outcomes between the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding factors.

A total of 75 superficial esophageal epithelial neoplasms (41 in the C-ESD and 34 in the GI-ESD groups) were treated using ESD. The mean procedure time in the GI-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the C-ESD group (59.2 ± 36.2 vs 85.3 ± 45.7 min, P = 0.008). After IPTW adjustment, the mean procedural times were 62.6 ± 36.6 and 82.9 ± 41.7 min in the GI-ESD and C-ESD groups, respectively (P = 0.037), and the incidence rate of muscle layer damage was 4.2% in the GI-ESD group and 30.6% in the C-ESD group (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, specimen size ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio [OR]: 9.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.46-36.30, P = 0.001) was positively correlated with longer procedural time (≥ 90 min), whereas GI-ESD (OR: 0.19, 95%CI: 0.05-0.68, P = 0.011) showed a negative association.

Esophageal GI-ESD may be useful in terms of safety and time efficiency. The GI technique could be an option for esophageal ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a therapeutic technique for en-bloc resection of both large (>20 mm) and smaller, complex gastrointestinal neoplasms. ESD has a higher success rate of en-bloc resection and a lower rate of local recurrence compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Removal of lesions via ESD can leave large mucosal defects, raising unique challenges leading to adverse events. We aimed to determine clinical outcomes including delayed bleeding, perforation and hospitalization in patients undergoing endoscopic suturing following ESD.

Single-center retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive adult patients who underwent ESD with mucosal defect closure using endoscopic suturing. Primary outcomes were adverse events, specifically, delayed bleeding or perforation. Secondary outcomes included need for hospitalization and suturing complications.

55 patients (mean age: 67 years) were included with a mean lesion size of 27.4 mm ± 15. Defect closure occurred in the esophagus (6), gastroesophageal junction (2), stomach (30), cecum (2), sigmoid colon (2) and rectum (13). A mean of 1.8 ± 1.0 sutures were required for defect closure. Hospital admission rates were 14% (8/55) with an average length of stay 2 days (range: 1-3 days). Intra-procedure perforation occurred in two patients and both were successfully treated with endoscopic suturing. There was one case of delayed bleeding and no cases of delayed perforation or suturing complications.

The use of endoscopic suturing following ESD is a safe and clinically reliable method to close mucosal defects. This approach is associated with minimal adverse events and need for hospitalization. Larger studies are needed to further validate these findings.