Cargando…
Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With an external additional working channel (AWC) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as well as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be extended to techniques termed “EMR+” and “ESD+.” These novel techniques are systematically compared to EMR and ESD under the use of a dou...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10520185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37567979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10295-4 |
_version_ | 1785109859398582272 |
---|---|
author | Knoop, Richard F. Amanzada, Ahmad Petzold, Golo Ellenrieder, Volker Engelhardt, Michael Neesse, Albrecht Bremer, Sebastian C. B. Kunsch, Steffen |
author_facet | Knoop, Richard F. Amanzada, Ahmad Petzold, Golo Ellenrieder, Volker Engelhardt, Michael Neesse, Albrecht Bremer, Sebastian C. B. Kunsch, Steffen |
author_sort | Knoop, Richard F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With an external additional working channel (AWC) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as well as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be extended to techniques termed “EMR+” and “ESD+.” These novel techniques are systematically compared to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope (DC). METHODS: Our trial was conducted prospectively in a pre-clinical porcine animal model (EASIE-R simulator) with standardized gastric lesions measuring 3 or 4 cm. RESULTS: EMR+ and EMR DC showed both good results for 3 cm lesions with no adverse events and an en bloc resection rate of 73.33% (EMR+) and 60.00% (EMR DC, p = 0.70). They came to their limits in 4 cm lesions with muscularis damages of 20.00% (EMR+), 13.33% (EMR DC, p ≥ 0.99) and decreasing en bloc resection rates of 60.00% (EMR+) and 46.67% (EMR DC, p = 0.72). ESD+ and ESD DC were both reliable concerning en bloc resection rates (100% in all groups) and adverse events (0.00% in 3 cm lesions, 12.50% muscularis damages in both ESD+ and ESD DC in 4 cm lesions). Resection time was slightly shorter in all groups with the AWC compared to DC although only reaching significance in 3 cm ESD lesions (p < 0.05*). CONCLUSIONS: With the AWC, a standard endoscope can easily be transformed to double-channel functionality. We could show that EMR+ and ESD+ are non-inferior to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope. Consequently, the AWC presents an affordable alternative to a double-channel endoscope for both EMR and ESD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10520185 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105201852023-09-27 Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model Knoop, Richard F. Amanzada, Ahmad Petzold, Golo Ellenrieder, Volker Engelhardt, Michael Neesse, Albrecht Bremer, Sebastian C. B. Kunsch, Steffen Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With an external additional working channel (AWC) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as well as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be extended to techniques termed “EMR+” and “ESD+.” These novel techniques are systematically compared to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope (DC). METHODS: Our trial was conducted prospectively in a pre-clinical porcine animal model (EASIE-R simulator) with standardized gastric lesions measuring 3 or 4 cm. RESULTS: EMR+ and EMR DC showed both good results for 3 cm lesions with no adverse events and an en bloc resection rate of 73.33% (EMR+) and 60.00% (EMR DC, p = 0.70). They came to their limits in 4 cm lesions with muscularis damages of 20.00% (EMR+), 13.33% (EMR DC, p ≥ 0.99) and decreasing en bloc resection rates of 60.00% (EMR+) and 46.67% (EMR DC, p = 0.72). ESD+ and ESD DC were both reliable concerning en bloc resection rates (100% in all groups) and adverse events (0.00% in 3 cm lesions, 12.50% muscularis damages in both ESD+ and ESD DC in 4 cm lesions). Resection time was slightly shorter in all groups with the AWC compared to DC although only reaching significance in 3 cm ESD lesions (p < 0.05*). CONCLUSIONS: With the AWC, a standard endoscope can easily be transformed to double-channel functionality. We could show that EMR+ and ESD+ are non-inferior to EMR and ESD under the use of a double-channel endoscope. Consequently, the AWC presents an affordable alternative to a double-channel endoscope for both EMR and ESD. Springer US 2023-08-11 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10520185/ /pubmed/37567979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10295-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Knoop, Richard F. Amanzada, Ahmad Petzold, Golo Ellenrieder, Volker Engelhardt, Michael Neesse, Albrecht Bremer, Sebastian C. B. Kunsch, Steffen Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title | Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title_full | Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title_fullStr | Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title_full_unstemmed | Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title_short | Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
title_sort | endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (emr+ and esd+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10520185/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37567979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10295-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT knooprichardf endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT amanzadaahmad endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT petzoldgolo endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT ellenriedervolker endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT engelhardtmichael endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT neessealbrecht endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT bremersebastiancb endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel AT kunschsteffen endoscopicmucosalresectionandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionwithanexternaladditionalworkingchannelemrandesdareequivalenttousingadoublechannelendoscopeasystematicevaluationinaporcineexvivomodel |