Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a transformative technique for managing gastrointestinal (GI) lesions, previously deemed unsuitable for endoscopic removal. Unlike conventional endoscopic resection methods, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EFTR enables en bloc excision of both intraluminal and subepithelial lesions by resecting all layers of the GI wall, followed by defect closure to prevent complications. The introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) has significantly enhanced the feasibility and safety of EFTR, particularly in the colon and upper GI tract, with increasing adoption worldwide. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of FTRD®, focusing on its clinical applications, procedural methodology, and comparative efficacy against other endoscopic resection techniques. The indications and contraindications for EFTR are explored, highlighting its utility in treating non-lifting adenomas, subepithelial tumours, and T1 carcinomas without lymph node involvement. This review synthesizes current clinical data and FTRD® advantages. Despite its strengths, EFTR via FTRD® incorporates challenges such as limitations in lesion size, procedural complexity, and potential adverse events. Strategies for overcoming these challenges, including hybrid techniques and modifications in procedural approach, are examined. The review also emphasizes the need for further research to optimize surveillance strategies and determine the long-term clinical impact of EFTR in GI lesion management. By integrating recent evidence, this paper provides valuable insights into the evolving role of EFTR in therapeutic endoscopy.

The full thickness resection is an innovative technique that enables non-exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) of superficial and subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions. This retrospective, multicenter study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of EFTR in gastroduodenal and colorectal resections.

Data from 105 consecutive EFTR procedures at 6 Polish endoscopic centers were analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups: 'difficult adenoma', adenocarcinoma, or subepithelial lesion (SEL). Outcomes assessed were R0 resection and adverse event rates, with subgroup analysis.

The study included 105 patients (mean age: 67 ± 10.3 years; 59% male): 48 (46%) with 'difficult adenoma', 31 (30%) with adenocarcinoma, and 26 (25%) with SEL. Of these, 82 patients (78%) underwent colorectal EFTR, while 23 (22%) underwent gastroduodenal EFTR. Technical success was achieved in 101 procedures (96%), with a median time of 30 (20; 40) minutes. Among the technically successful EFTRs, R0 resection was confirmed in 86 patients (97%): 18 (95%) in the SEL group, 45 (100%) in the 'difficult adenoma' group, and 23 (92%) in the adenocarcinoma group (p = 0.1806). In 13 EFTR procedures (13%), a scar from a previous endoscopic resection was removed without any pathological lesion. Curative resections were obtained in 21 (88%) patients in the SEL group and 20 (67%) patients in the adenocarcinoma group (p = 0.0001). Clinical adverse events occurred in 12 patients (11%): Clavien-Dindo grade I (5%), II (2%), and IIIb (5%).

EFTR is reasonably safe and effective for resection of colorectal and gastroduodenal lesions, which would otherwise most likely require surgical treatment.

The application of endoscopic suturing has revolutionized defect closures. Conventional over-the-scope suturing necessitates removal of the scope, placement of the device, and reinsertion. A single channel, single sequence, through-the-scope suturing device has been developed to improve this process. This study aims to describe the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of a through-the-scope suturing device for gastrointestinal defect closure.

This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 9 centers of consecutive adult patients who underwent suturing using the X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System (Apollo Endosurgery). The primary outcomes were technical success and long-term clinical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, recurrence, and reintervention rates.

In all, 56 patients (mean age 53.8, 33 women) were included. Suturing indications included fistula repair (n=22), leak repair (n=7), polypectomy defect closure (n=12), peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) site closure (n=7), perforation repair (n=6), and ulcers (n=2). Patients were followed at a mean duration of 74 days. Overall technical and long-term clinical success rates were 92.9% and 75%, respectively. Both technical and clinical success rates were 100% for polypectomies, POEM-site closures, and ulcers. Success rates were lower for the repair of fistulas (95.5% technical, 54.5% clinical), leaks (57.1%, 28.6%), and perforations (100%, 66.7%). No immediate adverse events were noted.

This novel, through-the-scope endoscopic suturing system, is a safe and feasible method to repair defects that are ≤3 cm. The efficacy of this device may be better suited for superficial defects as opposed to full-thickness defects. Larger defects will need more sutures and probably a double closure technique to provide a reinforcement layer.

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.

A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32).

Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) represents a pivotal advancement in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal lesions, offering a novel approach for the management of lesions previously deemed challenging or unreachable through conventional endoscopic techniques.

This review discusses the development, methodologies, applications, and clinical outcomes associated with EFTR, including exposed and device-assisted EFTR, the integration of endoscopic mucosal resection with EFTR in hybrid techniques, and the collaborative approach between laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery (LECS). It encapsulates a comprehensive analysis of the various EFTR techniques tailored to specific lesion characteristics and anatomical locations, underscoring the significance of technique selection based on the lesion's nature and situational context.

The review underscores EFTR's transformative role in expanding therapeutic horizons for gastrointestinal tumors, emphasizing the importance of technique selection tailored to the unique attributes of each lesion. It highlights EFTR's capacity to facilitate organ-preserving interventions, thereby significantly enhancing patient outcomes and reducing procedural complications. EFTR is a cornerstone in the evolution of gastrointestinal surgery, marking a significant leap forward in the pursuit of precision, safety, and efficacy in tumor management.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an innovative technique for the treatment of colonic lesions not feasible by conventional endoscopic resection. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for colonic lesions in a high-volume tertiary referral center.

A review of a prospectively collected database on patients that underwent EFTR with FTRD for colonic lesions from June 2016 to January 2021 at our institution was performed. Data regarding the clinical history, previous endoscopic treatments, pathological examination, technical and histological success, and follow-up were evaluated.

Thirty-five patients (26 males, median age 69 years) underwent FTRD for colonic lesion. Eighteen lesions were in the left colon, three in the transverse, and 12 in the right colon. The median size of the lesions was 13 (range 10-40) mm. Resection was technically successful in 94% of patients. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (SD ± 1.2) days. Adverse events were reported in four cases (11.4%). Histological complete resection (R0) was achieved in 93.9% of cases. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 96.8% of patients, at a median duration of 14.6 months (3-46 months). Recurrence was observed in 19.4% of cases at a median time of 3 months (3-7 months). Five patients had multiple FTRD performed, with R0 resection in three cases. In this subset, adverse events were observed in 40% of cases.

FTRD is safe and feasible for standard indication. The non-negligible rate of recurrence observed suggests the need for close endoscopic follow-up in these patients. Multiple EFTR could help achieve complete resection in selected cases; however, in this setting, a higher risk of adverse events was observed.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has become the standard technique for selected nonlifting colorectal adenomas, but tumor size is the major limitation. However, large lesions might be approached in combination with EMR. Herein, we report the largest single-center experience to date of combined EMR and EFTR (hybrid EFTR) in patients with large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas not amenable to EMR or EFTR alone.

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent hybrid EFTR of large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Outcomes of technical success (successful advancement of the FTRD with consecutive successful clip deployment and snare resection), macroscopic complete resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow-up were evaluated.

Seventy-five patients with nonlifting colorectal adenomas were included. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm (range, 25-60 mm), and 66.6% were located in the right side of the colon. Technical success was 100% with macroscopic complete resection in 97.3%. Mean procedure time was 83.6 minutes. Adverse events occurred in 6.7%, leading to surgical therapy in 1.3%. Histology revealed T1 carcinoma in 16%. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 93.3% (mean follow-up time, 8.1 months; range, 3-36) and showed no signs of residual or recurrent adenoma in 88.6%. Recurrence (11.4%) was treated endoscopically.

Hybrid EFTR is safe and effective for advanced colorectal adenoma that cannot be approached by EMR or EFTR alone. Hybrid EFTR expands the indication of EFTR substantially in selected patients.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a viable technique in the management of mucosal and subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) not amenable to conventional therapeutic approaches. While various devices and techniques have been described for EFTR, a single, combined full-thickness resection and closure device (full-thickness resection device, FTRD system, Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tuebingen, Germany) has become commercially available in recent years. Initially, the FTRD system was limited to use in the colorectum only. Recently, a modified version of the FTRD has been released for EFTR in the upper GIT as well. This review provides a broad summary of the FTRD, highlighting recent advances and current challenges.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an integral part of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Since its market launch in Europe in 2014, its safety and effectiveness have been proven in numerous studies. Adaptations in design as well as new techniques, such as hybrid EFTR, expand the spectrum of the FTRD system. The following review is intended to provide an overview of the clinical application and current evidence of EFTR with the FTRD system.

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

The local resection of recurrent rectal adenomas is a technically challenging task associated with increased local recurrence rate. Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) uses traction to better expose the fibrotic submucosal layer, and therefore, is a valuable alternative for the treatment of such lesions. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of TEM-ESD for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas.

We retrospectively analysed all TEM-ESD procedures performed in the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital between 2012 and 2021 and isolated all cases of recurrent adenomas. Subsequently, we matched these cases 1:1 to TEM-ESD cases for primary rectal adenomas according to the size, localization, and histological type of the lesions and compared the outcomes between the two groups.

We identified 19 cases matching our criteria. The median diameter of the lesions was 25 mm and the median operating time 39 min. Macroscopic en bloc resection was achieved in 100% of the cases and histological complete en bloc resection in 78.9%. There was 1 case of conservatively treated postoperative bleeding. After a median follow-up period of 36 months, there was one local recurrence. After comparing those findings to the outcomes of TEM-ESD for primary rectal lesions, we found no significant differences on total operating time, complete en bloc resection rates, adverse events, and local recurrence.

TEM-ESD is a feasible therapeutic option for the resection of recurrent rectal adenomas, offering short operating times as well as high en bloc resection and low recurrence rates.

Closure of endoscopic resection defects can be achieved with through-the-scope clips, over-the-scope clips, or endoscopic suturing. However, these devices are often limited by their inability to close large, irregular, and difficult-to-reach defects. Thus, we aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of a novel through-the-scope, suture-based closure system developed to overcome these limitations.

This was a retrospective multicenter study involving 8 centers in the United States. Primary outcomes were feasibility and safety of early use of the device. Secondary outcomes were assessment of need for additional closure devices, prolonged procedure time, and technical feasibility of performing the procedure with an alternative device(s).

Ninety-three patients (48.4% women) with mean age 63.6 ± 13.1 years were included. Technical success was achieved in 83 patients (89.2%), and supplemental closure was required in 24.7% of patients (n = 23) with a mean defect size of 41.6 ± 19.4 mm. Closure with an alternative device was determined to be impossible in 24.7% of patients because of location, size, or shape of the defect. The use of the tack and suture device prolonged the procedure in 8.6% of cases but was considered acceptable. Adverse events occurred in 2 patients (2.2%) over a duration of follow-up of 34 days (interquartile range, 13-93.5) and were mild and moderate in severity. No serious adverse events or procedure-related deaths occurred.

The novel endoscopic through-the-scope tack and suture system is safe, efficient, and permits closure of large and irregularly shaped defects that were not possible with established devices.

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6-27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has expanded the possibilities of endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) combines a clip-based defect closure and snare resection in a single device.

 Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the FTRD in the colon.

 A total of 26 studies (12 published as full-text articles and 14 conference papers) with 1538 FTRD procedures were included. The pooled estimate for reaching the target lesion was 96.1 % (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 94.6-97.1) and 90.0 % (95 % CI: 87.0-92.3) for technically successful resection. Pooled estimate of histologically complete resection was 77.8 % (95 % CI: 74.7-80.6). Adverse events occurred at a pooled estimate rate of 8.0 % (95 % CI: 5.8-10.4). Pooled estimates for bleeding and perforation were 1.5 % (95 % CI: 0.3-3.3) and 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.0-0.9), respectively. The rate for need of emergency surgery after FTRD was 1.0 % (95 % CI: 0.4-1.8).

 The use of the FTRD in the colon shows very high rates of technical success and complete resection (R0) as well as a low risk of adverse events. Emergency surgery after colonic FTRD resection is necessary in single cases only.

The introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allowed resection of difficult adenomas in the duodenum and colorectum with non-lifting. The main limitation of this endoscopic technique is the lesion size. We describe a hybrid approach combining endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and FTRD in a cohort of 17 patients to reduce tumor size and enable full-thickness resection.

Retrospective analysis from data of 17 patients who underwent hybrid EMR-FTRD for large adenomas in the colorectum at our institution. Technical success, histological confirmation of margin-free resection and adverse advents were studied.

16 of 17 (94.1%) lesions could be resected macroscopically complete with confirmed full-thickness resection. Histological work-up of the full-thickness specimens showed free lateral margins in 13 patients (76.4%), unclear margins in two patients (11.8%) and positive margins in two patients (11.8%). There were no immediate perforation or major bleeding, however one patient showed a stenosis after resection in the follow-up endoscopy. Follow-up endoscopy was available in 12 patients. In two of 12 patients a recurrent adenoma was detected.

Hybrid EMR-EFTR in the colorectum seems to be a safe and effective technique for large non-lifting lesions with positive lifting signs in the margins. Further prospective evaluation of efficacy, safety and long-term outcome of this hybrid technique is necessary.

The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) offers a safe and effective approach for resection of complex colorectal lesions but is limited to lesions <2 cm in size. A hybrid approach-combining EMR with the FTRD-significantly expands the pool of lesions amenable to this technique; however, its safety and efficacy has not been well established.

We report a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness resection (FTR) of colorectal lesions, either with a standalone FTRD or a hybrid (EMR + FTRD) approach. Outcomes of technical success, clinical success (macroscopically complete resection), R0 resection, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

Sixty-nine FTR procedures (38 standalone FTR and 31 hybrid EMR + FTR) were performed on 65 patients. The most common indications were nonlifting polyp (43%) or suspected high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (38%). Hybrid EMR + FTR permitted resection of significantly larger lesions (mean, 39 mm; range, 15-70 mm) compared with standalone FTR (mean, 17 mm; range, 7-25 mm; P < .01). Clinical success (91%), technical success (83%), and R0 resection (81%) rates did not differ between standalone and hybrid groups. Most patients (96%) were discharged home on the day of the procedure. Three AEs occurred, including 2 patients who developed acute appendicitis.

A hybrid approach combining EMR and FTRD maintains safety and efficacy while permitting resection of significantly larger lesions than FTRD alone.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR.

In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications.

Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation.

In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.

 Conventional endoscopic resection of lesions affecting the appendiceal orifice is difficult. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel technique in interventional endoscopy. As EFTR near the appendiceal orifice is associated with a subtotal appendectomy, it remains unclear whether the risk of developing appendicitis is increased. We conducted a retrospective analysis of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice treated by EFTR.

 This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients (n = 50) treated with EFTR for lesions involving the appendiceal orifice between 2014 and 2019. The objective was to evaluate the occurrence of appendicitis.

 Acute appendicitis occurred in seven patients (14 %) during follow-up. Conservative treatment was sufficient in four cases, and three patients underwent appendectomy.

 EFTR of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice may be associated with an imminent risk of developing appendicitis and a consecutive need for appendectomy. Patients should be informed about this specific risk prior to resection. It is unclear why some patients develop appendicitis while the majority remains asymptomatic.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a powerful option for resection of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allows clip-assisted EFTR with a single-step technique. We report on results of a large nationwide FTRD registry.

The "German colonic FTRD registry" was created to further assess efficacy and safety of the FTRD System after approval in Europe. Data were analyzed retrospectively.

Sixty-five centers contributed 1,178 colorectal FTRD procedures. Indications for EFTR were difficult adenomas (67.1%), early carcinomas (18.4%), subepithelial tumors (6.8%), and diagnostic EFTR (1.3%). Mean lesion size was 15 × 15 mm and most lesions were pretreated endoscopically (54.1%). Technical success was 88.2% and R0 resection was achieved in 80.0%. R0 resection was significantly higher for subepithelial tumor compared with that for other lesions. No difference in R0 resection was found for smaller vs larger lesions or for colonic vs rectal procedures. Adverse events occurred in 12.1% (3.1% major events and 2.0% required surgical treatment). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 58.0% and showed residual/recurrent lesions in 13.5%, which could be managed endoscopically in most cases (77.2%).

To date, this is the largest study of colorectal EFTR using the FTRD System. The study demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety for "difficult-to-resect" colorectal lesions and confirms results of previous studies in a large "real-world" setting. Further studies are needed to compare EFTR with other advanced resection techniques and evaluate long-term outcome.

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system has been increasingly utilized as a non-surgical option to endoscopically manage refractory gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage, perforations/luminal defects and fistulas. Limited data exist evaluating the efficacy and safety of OTSC.

To determine the clinical success and adverse event (AE) rates of OTSC across all GI indications.

A PubMed search was conducted for eligible articles describing the application of the OTSC system for any indication in the GI tract. Any article or case series reporting data for less than 5 total patients was excluded. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical success. Secondary outcomes included: Technical success rate, OTSC-related AE rate and requirement for surgical intervention despite-OTSC placement. Pooled rates (per-indication and overall) were calculated as the number of patients with the event of interest divided by the total number of patients.

A total of 85 articles met our inclusion criteria (n = 3025 patients). OTSC was successfully deployed in 94.4% of patients (n = 2856/3025). The overall rate of clinical success (all indications) was 78.4% (n = 2371/3025). Per-indication clinical success rates were as follows: (1) 86.0% (1120/1303) for GI hemorrhage; (2) 85.3% (399/468) for perforation; (3) 55.8% (347/622) for fistulae; (4) 72.6% (284/391) for anastomotic leaks; (5) 92.8% (205/221) for defect closure following endoscopic resection (e.g., following endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection); and (6) 80.0% (16/20) for stent fixation. AE's related to the deployment of OTSC were only reported in 64 of 85 studies (n = 1942 patients), with an overall AE rate of 2.1% (n = 40/1942). Salvage surgical intervention was required in 4.7% of patients (n = 143/3025).

This systematic review demonstrates that the OTSC system is a safe and effective endoscopic therapy to manage GI hemorrhage, perforations, anastomotic leaks, defects created by endoscopic resections and for stent fixation. Clinical success in fistula management appears limited. Further studies, including randomized controlled trials comparing OTSC with conventional and/or surgical therapies, are needed to determine which indication(s) are the most effective for its use.

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

A total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8-97.3%), 89.5% (83.9-94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1-92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4-4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00-1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1-6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1-14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5-90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4-11.7%), respectively.

EFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) are the frontier of therapeutic endoscopic. These two methods rely on the skillset and equipment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) while going beyond the boundaries of the gastrointestinal lumen. They are both representatives of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with STER being a direct off-shoot of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Both techniques are designed for the removal of gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria but tend to be used in different organs and come with respective challenges. In this review we will go over the history, indication, technique and literature of these two techniques.

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is safe and cost-effective in management of patients with colon polyps. However, very little is known about the actions of the referring endoscopist following identification of these lesions at index colonoscopy, and the impact of those actions on the outcome of subsequent referral for EMR. The aim of this study was to identify practices at index colonoscopy that lead to failure of subsequent EMR. Patients and methods  Two hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with biopsy-proven non-malignant colon polyps (> 20 mm) referred for EMR were analyzed to identify practices that could be improved from the time of identifying the lesion at index colonoscopy until completion of therapy. Results  EMR was abandoned at colonoscopy at the EMR center in 71 of 289 patients (24.6 %). Reasons for abandoning EMR included diagnosis of invasive carcinoma (n = 9; 12.7 %), tethered lesions (n = 21; 29.6 %) from prior endoscopic interventions, and overly large (n = 22; 31 %) and inaccessible lesions (n = 17; 24 %) for complete and safe resection whose details were not recorded in the referring endoscopy report, or polyposis syndromes (n = 2; 2.8 %) that were not recognized. Conclusions  In our practice, one in four EMR attempts were abandoned as a result of inadequate diagnosis or management by the referring endoscopist, which could be improved by education on optical diagnosis of polyps, comprehensive documentation of the procedure and avoidance of interventions that preclude resection.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a new technique for the resection of colonic lesions with limitations for other techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) due to fibrosis, the location of the lesion or invasion depth. In addition, techniques such as ESD require a long learning curve and unfortunately they are not fully implemented in Western countries. EFTR has numerous indications, which are expanding daily. The Full-Thickness Resection Device® (FTRD) is a promising tool, although it has many limitations and is associated with some risks. One of the main limitations of this resection device is the size of the lesion and it is not recommended for the resection of lesions > 30 mm. Furthermore, tumor size is directly related to the "en bloc" resection rate. On the one hand, this case report suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy can modify the lesion size and larger lesions become candidates for EFTR in a second attempt. On the other hand, the concomitant use of systemic anticancer therapy could be a contraindication for the use of FTRD® as it may be associated with late perforations. It is necessary to establish the time between the use of chemotherapy and the use of FTRD® in order to avoid complications. These considerations must be analyzed in future prospective studies.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique for the treatment of various conditions for which classic endoscopic resection techniques have failed or were considered to be at high risk for perforation. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an over-the-scope system which allows a single-step EFTR. The aim of our study is to describe our experience in EFTR of colorectal lesions using the FTRD.

Nine patients (10 colorectal lesions) were proposed for EFTR. Safety, R0 resection and endoscopic treatment success were evaluated.

Reasons for referral included nonlifting adenomas (n = 4), nonlifting adenoma recurrence (n = 5), and submucosal lesion (n = 1). EFTR was technically successful in all patients. The mean duration of the procedure was 55 min. R0 resection was obtained in all patients. No major complications were detected. All lesions were successfully treated by the endoscopic technique and no patient was referred for surgery. In patients with available follow-up (n = 6), no recurrence was detected.

EFTR is a feasible, reasonable time-consuming, safe, and promising endoscopic resection technique.

FTRD is an additional tool for difficult-to-treat colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel treatment of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the full-thickness resection device.

181 patients were recruited in 9 centres with the indication of difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early cancers and subepithelial tumours (SET). Primary endpoint was complete en bloc and R0 resection.

EFTR was technically successful in 89.5%, R0 resection rate was 76.9%. In 127 patients with difficult adenomas and benign histology, R0 resection rate was 77.7%. In 14 cases, lesions harboured unsuspected cancer, another 15 lesions were primarily known as cancers. Of these 29 cases, R0 resection was achieved in 72.4%; 8 further cases had deep submucosal infiltration >1000 µm. Therefore, curative resection could only be achieved in 13/29 (44.8%). In the subgroup with SET (n=23), R0 resection rate was 87.0%. In general, R0 resection rate was higher with lesions ≤2 cm vs >2 cm (81.2% vs 58.1%, p=0.0038). Adverse event rate was 9.9% with a 2.2% rate of emergency surgery. Three-month follow-up was available from 154 cases and recurrent/residual tumour was evident in 15.3%.

EFTR has a reasonable technical efficacy especially in lesions ≤2 cm with acceptable complication rates. Curative resection rate for early cancers was too low to recommend its primary use in this indication. Further comparative studies have to show the clinical value and long-term outcome of EFTR in benign colorectal lesions.

NCT02362126; Results.