Albrecht H, Schaefer C, Stegmaier A, Gschossmann J, Hagel A, Raithel M. Real-world topographical efficacy, procedural outcome and safety of endoscopic full thickness resection in colon segments. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 17(10): 112380 [DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i10.112380]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Heinz Albrecht, Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Ulmenweg 18, Erlangen 91054, Bavaria, Germany. heinz.albrecht@fau.de
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Oct 16, 2025 (publication date) through Oct 19, 2025
Times Cited of This Article
Times Cited (0)
Journal Information of This Article
Publication Name
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
ISSN
1948-5190
Publisher of This Article
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Albrecht H, Schaefer C, Stegmaier A, Gschossmann J, Hagel A, Raithel M. Real-world topographical efficacy, procedural outcome and safety of endoscopic full thickness resection in colon segments. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 17(10): 112380 [DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i10.112380]
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 16, 2025; 17(10): 112380 Published online Oct 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i10.112380
Real-world topographical efficacy, procedural outcome and safety of endoscopic full thickness resection in colon segments
Heinz Albrecht, Claus Schaefer, Andreas Stegmaier, Juergen Gschossmann, Alexander Hagel, Martin Raithel
Heinz Albrecht, Alexander Hagel, Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen 91054, Bavaria, Germany
Claus Schaefer, Department of Internal Medicine II, Klinikum Neumarkt i. d. Oberpfalz, Neumarkt 92318, Bavaria, Germany
Andreas Stegmaier, Department of Internal Medicine II, Krankenhaus Martha-Maria St. Theresien, Nuremberg 90491, Bavaria, Germany
Juergen Gschossmann, Department of Internal Medicine, Klinikum Forchheim, Forchheim 91301, Bavaria, Germany
Martin Raithel, Department of Medicine II, Gastroenterology and Interventional Endoscopy, Malteser Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien Erlangen, Erlangen 91054, Bavaria, Germany
Author contributions: Albrecht H and Raithel M were responsible for conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work; Schäfer C, Stegmaier A, Gschossmann J and Hagel A were responsible for acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data for the work, reviewing it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.
Institutional review board statement: This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with all relevant guidelines and regulations applicable in Germany. According to local regulations, neither ethics committee approval nor registration was required due to the non-interventional retrospective design and therefore no approval number was assigned. The study was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed consent statement: Due to the retrospective nature of the study no extra approval or written informed consent was required.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Data sharing statement: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Heinz Albrecht, Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Ulmenweg 18, Erlangen 91054, Bavaria, Germany. heinz.albrecht@fau.de
Received: July 25, 2025 Revised: August 5, 2025 Accepted: August 25, 2025 Published online: October 16, 2025 Processing time: 83 Days and 12.2 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Despite growing evidence on endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR), data on segment-specific outcomes in real-world patients remain limited.
AIM
To investigate segment-specific outcomes of EFTR using a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for neoplastic colorectal lesions.
METHODS
In this multicenter, retrospective study, EFTR was conducted in unselected real-world patients referred to participating German centers after colonoscopy confirmed EFTR eligibility. The primary outcome was histologically complete resection (R0) of the lesion, including segment-specific outcomes and adverse events (AE). Additional efficacy and safety parameters were investigated by colonic topography for up to 30 days.
RESULTS
The analysis included 102 patients (64 males, 38 females) with a median age of 70 years. EFTR via FTRD was technically successful in all patients. The R0 rate was 81.4%, segment-specifically ranging from 85.0% (rectum), 84.6% (descending colon), 84.0% (ascending colon), 83.3% (cecum), and 76.5% (sigmoid colon) to 73.3% (transverse colon). Examination time was longer in proximal parts compared to the rectosigmoid (non-significant). Overall, 33 patients (32.4%) experienced AE, including only one major complication (0.98%; perforation of sigmoid colon). Abdominal postsurgical pain (18.6%), hematochezia (9.8%), and hemoglobin decline (7.8%) were the most frequent minor complications. Transverse colon lesions had the numerically highest rate of AE, with 8 of 15 patients (53.3%) affected.
CONCLUSION
EFTR is efficacious for neoplastic colorectal lesions, though R0 rates vary by location. This may impact patient education, selection of the operator, and consideration of laparoscopy surgery.
Core Tip: Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) using full-thickness resection device achieved an overall histologically complete resection (R0) rate of 81.4% with a high technical success rate (99.0%), confirming its applicability in routine clinical settings. R0 resection rates and adverse event (AE) frequencies varied by colonic segment, with the rectum showing the numerically highest efficacy and lowest complication rate, while the transverse colon had the numerically lowest R0 rate and highest AE rate. Postsurgical abdominal pain occurred significantly less often in rectal compared to transverse colon EFTR. These findings suggest that lesion topography plays a relevant role in EFTR outcomes and should be considered in patient counseling, clinical decision-making, and endoscopic training.
