Cargando…

Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Assisted by an Overtube with a Traction Forceps: An Animal Study

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 an ex vivo animal study and compared the clinical outcomes between OTF...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ohata, Ken, Fu, Kuangi, Sakai, Eiji, Nonaka, Kouichi, Tashima, Tomoaki, Minato, Yohei, Ohno, Akiko, Ito, Takafumi, Tsuji, Yosuke, Chiba, Hideyuki, Yamawaki, Makoto, Hemmi, Hideyuki, Nakaya, Teruo, Fukushima, Junichi, Matsuhashi, Nobuyuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4978846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27528866
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3186168
Descripción
Sumario: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 an ex vivo animal 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 versus 7.8 ± 4.5 min, P < 0.001, and 11.3 ± 4.4 min versus 5.9 ± 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 ± 0.6 times versus 2.9 ± 1.5 times, P < 0.001, and 5.3 ± 2.8 mL versus 15.6 ± 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.