AIMTo compare the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms using Clutch Cutter (ESD-C) or other knives (ESD-O).METHODSThis was a single-center retrospective study. Gastric neoplasms treated by ESD between April 2016 and October 2017 at Kitakyushu Municipal Medical Center were reviewed. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to reduce biases. Covariates included factors that might affect outcomes of ESD, including age, sex, underlying disease, anti-thrombotic drugs use, tumor location, tumor position, tumor size, tumor depth, tumor morphology, tumor histology, ulcer (scar), and operator skill. The treatment outcomes were compared among two groups. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates, and adverse events rates including perforation and delayed bleeding.RESULTSA total of 155 patients were included in this study; 44 pairs were created by propensity score matching. Background characteristics were quite similar among two groups after matching. Procedure time was significantly shorter for ESD-C (median; 49 min) than for ESD-O (median; 88.5 min) (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between ESD-C and ESD-O including en bloc resection rate (100% in both groups), complete resection rate (100% in both groups), curative resection rate (86.4% vs 88.6%, P = 0.730), delayed bleeding (2.3% vs 6.8%, P = 0.62) and perforation (0% in both groups).CONCLUSIONESD-C achieved shorter procedure time without an increase in complication risk. Therefore, ESD-C could become an effective ESD option for gastric neoplasms.

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric neoplasms is still a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure. Hybrid ESD (H-ESD) involves circumferential incision with partial submucosal dissection combined with subsequent mucosal resection by snaring, wherein the newly developed device allows us to perform H-ESD using a single device. This study aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of H-ESD compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for early gastric neoplasms. Methods: In this multi-center, retrospective study, using propensity score-matched analysis, we reviewed the charts of patients with early gastric neoplasms smaller than 20 mm treated with H-ESD or C-ESD at three hospitals between January 2017 and October 2018. The primary outcome was the procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were other factors, including the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, curative resection rate, and rate of adverse events. Results: Among 215 patients, 29 underwent H-ESD and 186 underwent C-ESD; 29 pairs were created by propensity score matching. In the H-ESD group, 82.8% of lesions met the absolute indication [mucosal lesions limited to 20-mm diameter, dominated by differentiated adenocarcinoma without ulcer (scar)] for endoscopic resection (ER). As a result, the procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD [20 (interquartile range, 12–27) min versus 40 (30–50) min; p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion: H-ESD contributed to reduced procedure time. Therefore, H-ESD could be an alternative endoscopic treatment for gastric neoplasms when the lesion fulfils the absolute indication for ER.

SUMMARY The Clutch Cutter was invented as a scissor-type knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastrointestinal neoplasms. ESD with the scissor-type knife (ESD-S) may be considered a technically easier procedure than ESD with non-scissor-type knives (ESD-NS). Therefore, this study aimed to compare the technical outcomes of ESD-S with those of ESD-NS for superficial esophageal cancer. This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients with superficial esophageal cancer treated with ESD between October 2015 and March 2018 at three hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The ESD-S group had 48 patients and the ESD-NS group had 114 patients. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to compensate for the confounding bias between both groups. Multivariate analyses and propensity score matching were used to adjust for age, sex, the tumor size, tumor location, tumor depth, degree of tumor circumference, operator level, usage of the traction method, and the sedation method. The primary outcome was the procedure time of the ESD. Secondary outcomes were the rate of en-bloc/complete resection and the rate of complications including perforation, delayed bleeding, and stricture. Propensity score matching analysis provided 36 matched pairs. Median procedure time in the ESD-S group was significantly shorter than that in the ESD-NS group (44.0 min vs. 66.5 min, P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes were similar in both groups (en-bloc resection: 100% vs. 97.2%, P = 1; complete resection: 88.9% vs. 86.1%, P = 1; curative resection: 80.6% vs. 77.8%, P = 1; perforation: 0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.49; delayed bleeding: 0% in both groups; stricture: 2.8% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.61). ESD-S was associated with a shorter procedure time than ESD-NS, without an increase in the incidence of complications. Therefore, the scissor-type knife should be considered as an endo-knife for ESD of superficial esophageal cancers.

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard treatment for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. We developed a self-completion method of ESD using Endosaber to eliminate the need for an additional device or human assistance during the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and outcomes of this method in an ex vivo porcine training model. Methods: This was a pilot study, and the procedures were performed by 4 experts. Mock lesions measuring 15 mm in diameter were prepared at the posterior wall in the middle or lower esophagus obtained from domestic pigs. Each operator performed ESD on the mock lesions in 3 models. The primary outcome was ESD completion rate using the self-completion method. The secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection rate, perforation rate, and number of injections during the procedure. Results: All 12 ESDs were completed using the self-completion method. The median procedure time (interquartile range) was 483.5 (399–619.3) s (median incision time: 240.4 [168.3–332.5] s; median dissection time: 222 [182.8–257] s). En bloc resection rate was 100%. No perforation was noted during any of the procedures. The median number of injections was 10.5 (9–14.3). The procedure time decreased significantly with increase in experience (p = 0.020). Conclusions: The self-completion ESD method using one Endosaber without any assistance achieved a 100% en bloc resection rate without any perforation. The need for an additional device or assistance was successfully eliminated. This method may prove to be a simple and cost-effective ESD procedure for lesions in humans.

Stem cells for pancreatitis 425 Gastric injury and bacterial overgrowth 433 The effect of visceral fat on SMA configuration 451 Antiplatelet agents in ulcerative colitis 459 Differentiation of BMSCs into intestinal ce 466 GERDOFF ® efficacy in patients with GERD

Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model. Methods This study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Eight trainees had an experience of over 1000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range 6–16) vs. 17.0 min (range 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25–22.30; P = 0.024). Conclusions This study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.

BackgroundTrainee endoscopists find endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms difficult to perform independently; furthermore, there is no consensus on which endo-knife type is the most suitable for them. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study comparing the treatment outcomes of scissor-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model.MethodsAround 22 trainees from 13 institutions, divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience, performed ESD in a porcine model. Each trainee performed two ESDs under expert supervision: one with a scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and the other with a needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. ResultsEight trainees had an experience of over 1,000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the remaining had an experience of less than 1,000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range: 10.0–31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range: 10.0–38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range: 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range: 5.0–31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S.ConclusionsS-Trainees could perform ESD safely in an ex vivo porcine model under expert supervision, regardless of the endo-knife type used. However, the scissor-type knife is desirable if J-Trainees were to perform the ESD procedure.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for the treatment of colorectal neoplasms. We have developed a self-completion ESD (S-ESD) using Endosaber without requiring additional instruments or assistance. This prospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms. Patients with colorectal neoplasms measuring 20–40 mm in size were enrolled. A single operator, without assistance, performed ESD using only the Endosaber. The primary outcome was the success rate of S-ESD. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, the rates of en bloc, complete, and curative resection, and complication rates, including the incidence of perforation and delayed bleeding. In total, 15 patients with 15 lesions were enrolled. The median size of the resected lesions was 28 mm (interquartile range 25–29 mm). S-ESD success rate of 100% was achieved. The median procedure time was 44 min (29.5–53.5 min). We observed en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates of 100%, 93.3%, and 86.7%, respectively, and a complication rate of 6.7% (perforation: 0%, delayed bleeding: 6.7%). S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms was successfully performed with favorable treatment outcomes and low complication rates. S-ESD reduces the number of devices and extent of assistance, making S-ESD a simple and cost-effective procedure.