Copyright
©2010 Baishideng.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 16, 2010; 2(3): 90-96
Published online Mar 16, 2010. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v2.i3.90
Published online Mar 16, 2010. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v2.i3.90
Table 1 Problems during ESD using conventional knives and proposed measures
| Problems | Proposed measures |
| Unintentional incision | Device fixation to the targeted tissue |
| Outside insulation | |
| Perforation | Sufficient submucosal injection |
| Outside insulation | |
| Lift up the targeted tissue by device | |
| Good visualization of the targeted area | |
| Bleeding | Compression of the blood vessel by device |
Table 2 Clinicopathological characteristics (n = 49)
| Gender, male/female | 32/17 | ||
| Mean age years (range) | 69 (31-87) | ||
| Location, n | Esophagus | 3 | |
| Middle | 1 | ||
| Lower | 2 | ||
| Stomach[17] | 35 | ||
| Upper | 9 | ||
| Middle | 8 | ||
| Lower | 18 | ||
| Duodenum | Bulbus | 1 | |
| Colorectum[18] | 10 | ||
| Cecum | 2 | ||
| Ascending | 1 | ||
| Transverse | 2 | ||
| Descending | 2 | ||
| Rectum | 3 | ||
| Histologic type and depth of invasion, n | |||
| Carcinoma | 27 | ||
| Mucosa | 24 | ||
| Superficial submucosa | 2 | ||
| Deep submucosa | 1 | ||
| Adenoma | Mucosa | 20 | |
| Carcinoid tumor | Deep submucosa | 1 | |
| Granular cell tumor | Deep submucosa | 1 |
Table 3 Technical results of ESD using GSF (n = 49)
| Curative en-bloc resection rate, Total | 92% (45/49) |
| Esophagus | 100% (3/3) |
| Stomach[17] | 97% (34/35) |
| Duodenum | (0/1) |
| Colon and rectum[18] | 80% (8/10) |
| Mean ± SD operating time, minutes (Range), Total | 114.0 ± 63.4 (33-337) |
| Esophagus | 74.7 ± 26.3 (59-105) |
| Stomach[17] | 104.1 ± 54.4 (33-264) |
| Duodenum | 172 |
| Colon and rectum[18] | 154.9 ± 83.6 (70-337) |
| Mean ± SD size of tumor size, mm (Range) | 16.6 ± 9.0 (5-43) |
| Mean ± SD size of resected specimen, mm (Range) | 33.0 ± 10.5 (15-60) |
| Intra-operative perforation rate | 0/49 (0%) |
| Intra-operative major bleeding rate | 0/49 (0%) |
| Postoperative bleeding rate | 1/49 (2%) |
| Postoperative perforation rate | 0/49 (0%) |
Table 4 Theoretical advantages of GSF during ESD
| Advantageous mechanism | Expected physical effects | Technical outcome |
| Grasp | Fix | (1) No unintentional incision |
| Lift-up | (2) Good visualization | |
| (3) Sufficient separation from the underlying proper muscle layer to prevent perforation | ||
| Compress | (4) Hemostatic effect to prevent and treat bleeding | |
| Outside insulation | Closed discharge | (5) Minimizing damage to the surrounding tissue to prevent perforation |
| Rotatable | Change the direction of grasping | (6) Facilitating accurate targeting |
- Citation: Akahoshi K, Akahane H. A new breakthrough: ESD using a newly developed grasping type scissor forceps for early gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 2(3): 90-96
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v2/i3/90.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v2.i3.90
