This meta-analysis shows significantly shorter procedure time using CSP compared with HSP. CSP tends toward less delayed bleeding compared with HSP. We recommend CSP as the standard treatment for resecting small benign colorectal polyps.

No abstract

Background and study aims The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a novel strategy for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of the PCM for colorectal laterally spreading tumors, non-granular type (LST-NG). Patients and methods The records of 126 consecutive patients with colorectal LST-NG who underwent ESD between April 2012 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into PCM (n = 73) and conventional method (CM) (n = 53) groups. Results The en bloc resection rate in the PCM group was significantly higher than in the CM group (100 % [73/73] vs. 92 % [49/53], P = 0.03). The en bloc resection rate with severe fibrosis was higher in the PCM group than in the CM group (100 % [3/3] vs. 60 % [3/5]). The R0 resection rate for the two groups was not statistically significantly different (93 % [68/73] vs. 91 % [48/53], P = 0.74). The perforation rate in the PCM group was lower than in the CM group although not statistically significantly less (0 % 0/73 vs. 4 % 2/53, P = 0.18). For lesions resected en bloc, dissection speed for the PCM group was significantly faster than for the CM group (median [IQR], 19 [13 –24] vs. 14 [10 – 22] mm2/min, P = 0.03). Conclusion ESD using PCM achieves a reliable and safe resection of colorectal LST-NG.

Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires sophisticated endoscopic techniques because of a high rate of perforation. We introduced the pocket-creation method (PCM) of duodenal ESD to overcome difficulties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and usefulness of ESD using the PCM for superficial tumors of the duodenum. We performed ESD of 17 non-ampullary duodenal lesions using the conventional method and of 28 lesions using the PCM from 2006 to 2015 and retrospectively reviewed the results, comparing the PCM and the conventional method. The median follow-up period was 35 months (range 2 - 97). There were more lesions at the duodenal angles in the PCM group compared with the conventional method group (54 % [15/28] vs. 22 % [4/17]; = 0.048), and the resected specimen diameter was larger in the PCM than the conventional method group (median 37 mm [range 25 - 101] vs. 25 mm [15 - 55]; = 0.007). Dissection speed was faster in the PCM than the conventional method group (9.4 mm/min [3.0 - 15.7] vs. 6.5 mm/min [1.5 - 19.7]; = 0.09). En bloc resection was more frequent in the PCM (100 % [28/28]) than the conventional method group (88 % [15/17]) ( = 0.07). Perforation was significantly less frequent in the PCM (7 % [2/28]) than the conventional method group (29 % [5/17]; = 0.046). The one delayed perforation in the conventional method group required surgical repair, while other intraprocedural perforations were treated by clipping. There were no recurrences. ESD of duodenal lesions can be safely performed using the PCM, which stabilizes the tip of the endoscope even in difficult locations.

No abstract