Novel method for the management of stenosis after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: Mucosal incision with steroid injection contralateral to the severely contracted scar

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 622-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hirohito Mori ◽  
Hideki Kobara ◽  
Kazi Rafiq ◽  
Noriko Nishiyama ◽  
Shintaro Fujihara ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Ohata ◽  
Kuangi Fu ◽  
Eiji Sakai ◽  
Kouichi Nonaka ◽  
Tomoaki Tashima ◽  
...  

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically difficult. To make it safer, we developed a novel method using overtube with a traction forceps (OTF) for countertraction during submucosal dissection. We conducted anex vivoanimal study and compared the clinical outcomes between OTF-ESD and conventional method (C-ESD). A total of 32 esophageal ESD procedures were performed by four beginner and expert endoscopists. After circumferential mucosal incision for the target lesion, structured as the isolated pig esophagus 3 cm long, either C-ESD or OTF-ESD was randomly selected for submucosal dissection. All the ESD procedures were completed as en bloc resections, while perforation only occurred in a beginner’s C-ESD procedure. The dissection time for OTF-ESD was significantly shorter than that for C-ESD for both the beginner and expert endoscopists (22.8±8.3 min versus7.8±4.5 min,P<0.001, and11.3±4.4 min versus5.9±2.5 min,P=0.01, resp.). The frequency and volume of the submucosal injections were significantly smaller for OTF-ESD than for C-ESD (1.3±0.6times versus2.9±1.5times,P<0.001, and5.3±2.8 mL versus15.6±7.3 mL,P<0.001, resp.). Histologically, muscular injury was more common among the C-ESD procedures (80% versus 13%,P=0.009). Our results indicated that the OTF-ESD technique is useful for the safe and easy completion of esophageal ESD.



2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (05) ◽  
pp. E653-E658
Author(s):  
Tatsuma Nomura ◽  
Yoshikazu Hayashi ◽  
Takaaki Morikawa ◽  
Masahiro Okada ◽  
Hisashi Fukuda ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims The pocket-creation method (PCM) facilitates dissection of the central part of a tumor. We previously developed the PCM with clip traction (PCM-CT) to facilitate opening the mucosal pocket, which otherwise could become cumbersome. In the present study, we aimed to examine the feasibility of PCM-CT for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Patients and methods PCM-CT was performed on 30 patients with early colorectal tumors from October 2019 to April 2020. PCM-CT allows efficient opening of the mucosal pocket by using the PCM to dissect the center of the lesion and then apply traction with a single clip after making a circumferential mucosal incision. Results The median specimen major axis length, ESD time, ESD speed, and en bloc resection rate were 48 mm, 84 minutes, 20 mm2/min, and 100 % (30/30), respectively. The success rates for the traction clip and median single-clip-traction time were 100 % (30/30) and 1.5 minutes, respectively. Conclusions Colorectal ESD using PCM-CT is a simple and promising method.



2016 ◽  
Vol 04 (08) ◽  
pp. E828-E831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitomi Minami ◽  
Maiko Tabuchi ◽  
Kayoko Matsushima ◽  
Yuko Akazawa ◽  
Naoyuki Yamaguchi ◽  
...  




2016 ◽  
Vol 04 (09) ◽  
pp. E1017-E1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuaki Nagami ◽  
Masatsugu Shiba ◽  
Kazunari Tominaga ◽  
Masaki Ominami ◽  
Shusei Fukunaga ◽  
...  


2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (08) ◽  
pp. E729-E735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuusaku Sugihara ◽  
Keita Harada ◽  
Yoshiro Kawahara ◽  
Daisuke Takei ◽  
Shiho Takashima ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Few studies have directly compared endo-knives for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in humans. We compared the performances of the Mucosectom2 and SB knife Jr. Patients and methods Two trainee endoscopists performed ESD of 36 lesions in this prospective, randomized controlled trial. Mucosal incision with a 1.5-mm Dual knife and submucosal dissection using the Mucosectom2 were performed in 1 group. Mucosal incision with a 1.5-mm Dual knife and submucosal dissection with a SB knife Jr. were performed in the other group. The primary outcome was the ESD procedure time. Secondary outcomes were total procedure time, self-completion rates, and adverse events. Results ESD time in Mucosectom2 patients was not significantly shorter than in SB knife Jr. patients (57 ± 32 min vs. 61 ± 44 min, respectively; P = 0.94). Total procedure time in Mucosectom2 patients was not significantly shorter than in SB knife Jr. patients (81 ± 42 min vs. 82 ± 51 min, respectively; P = 0.85). The trainee self-completion rate was slightly higher in SB knife Jr. patients than in Mucosectom2 patients, although the difference was not significant (94 % vs. 100 %, respectively; P = 0.959). Fewer hemostatic procedures using the Coagrasper were performed in Mucosectom2 patients than in SB knife Jr. patients, although the difference was not significant (0.62 vs. 0.7, respectively; P = 0.432). Conclusions Mucosectom2 and SB knife Jr. did not significantly differ in performance for colorectal ESD to safely and reliably enhance ESD. Knife selection is not as important for learning colorectal ESD as patient- and lesion-related factors.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document