Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 651–657 | Cite as

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel articulating devices: a comparative study in a live porcine model

  • Yasuharu Okamoto
  • Ryu Nakadate
  • Shotaro Nakamura
  • Jumpei Arata
  • Susumu Oguri
  • Tomohiko Moriyama
  • Motohiro Esaki
  • Tsutomu Iwasa
  • Kenoki Ohuchida
  • Tomohiko Akahoshi
  • Tetsuo Ikeda
  • Takanari Kitazono
  • Makoto HashizumeEmail author
New Technology

Abstract

Background and aims

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is time-consuming and bears a high risk of perforation. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy between novel articulating devices and conventional ESD in live porcine colon models.

Methods

Thirty ESDs in ten pigs were carried out at three different locations (15, 25, and 35 cm from the anus) by the conventional method (n = 15) and by the new method (n = 15). Procedure times, adverse events (perforation, bleeding), and damage to the muscular layer were recorded, and the ESD time per unit area of the specimens was calculated.

Results

The perforation rate using the conventional method was 6.7% (1/15), whereas that using the new method was 0.0%. The number of sites of muscular damage was significantly lower in the new than conventional method (6 vs. 37, respectively; P = 0.024). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the new than conventional method (4.6 ± 2.0 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1 min/cm2, respectively; P = 0.042).

Conclusions

Use of the new ESD method allows for reduced adverse events and a shortened resection time.

Keywords

Endoscopic submucosal dissection ESD Novel device Articulating device Standard endoscope Colon 

Abbreviation

ESD

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Angela Morben, DVM, ELS, from Edanz Group (http://www.edanzediting.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Author contributions

YO: contributed to the study concept and design, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data, the statistical analysis, and the initial drafting of the manuscript; RN: contributed to the study concept and design, the acquisition, the analysis and interpretation of the data, the drafting of the manuscript, and the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; SN, JA, SO, TM, ME, TI, KO, TA, TI: contributed to data collection and interpretation, and critically reviewed the manuscript; TK and MH: contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final draft for submission. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Drs. Okamoto, Nakadate, Nakamura, Arata, Ohuchida, and Hashizume have received research funding from Hogy Medical Co. Ltd., Japan. Drs. Oguri, Moriyama, Esaki, Iwasa, Akahoshi, Ikeda and Kitazono have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Video 1 The first part of the video shows the dexterous movement, quick response, and small bending radius of the novel articulating devices. The second part of the video shows the endoscopic camera view during an in vivo porcine colorectal ESD. (MPG 45344 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y et al (2010) A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections. Gastrointest Endosc 72:1217–1725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gotoda T, Kondo H, Ono H et al (1999) A new endoscopic mucosal resection procedure using an insulation-tipped electrosurgical knife for rectal flat lesions: report of two cases. Gastrointest Endosc 50:560–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS et al (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 81:1311–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatt A, Abe S, Kumaravel A et al (2015) Indications and techniques for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Am J Gastroenterol 110:784–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T et al (2015) Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 81:583–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hotta K, Oyama T, Shinohara T et al (2010) Learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colorectal tumors. Dig Endosc 22:302–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patel N, Patel K, Ashrafian H et al (2016) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review of mid-term clinical outcomes. Dig Endosc 28:405–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fukami N (2013) What we want for ESD is a second hand! Traction method. Gastrointest Endosc 78:274–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kume K (2014) Endoscopic therapy for early gastric cancer: standard techniques and recent advances in ESD. World J Gastroenterol 20:6425–6432CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Tajiri H et al (2011) Evaluation of a new multitasking platform for endoscopic full-thickness resection. Gastrointest Endosc 73:117–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diana M, Chung H, Liu KH et al (2013) Endoluminal surgical triangulation: overcoming challenges of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissections using a novel flexible endoscopic surgical platform: feasibility study in a porcine model. Surg Endosc 27:4130–4135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chiu PW, Phee SJ, Bhandari P et al (2015) Enhancing proficiency in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by using a prototype robotic endoscope. Endosc Int Open 03:E439–E442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zizer E, Roppenecker D, Helmes F et al (2016) A new 3D-printed overtube system for endoscopic submucosal dissection: first results of a randomized study in a poricine model. Endoscopy 48:762–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakadate R, Kenmotsu H, Nakamura S et al (2014) 2.6 mm articulating endoscopic submucosal dissection device insertable into standard endoscope. Int J CARS 9(Suppl 1):S181–S182Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakadate R, Nakamura S, Moriyama T et al (2015) Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel 2.6-mm articulating devices: an ex vivo comparative and in vivo feasibility study. Endoscopy 47:820–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasuharu Okamoto
    • 1
  • Ryu Nakadate
    • 2
  • Shotaro Nakamura
    • 3
  • Jumpei Arata
    • 4
  • Susumu Oguri
    • 5
  • Tomohiko Moriyama
    • 1
  • Motohiro Esaki
    • 1
  • Tsutomu Iwasa
    • 2
    • 6
  • Kenoki Ohuchida
    • 5
    • 7
  • Tomohiko Akahoshi
    • 5
  • Tetsuo Ikeda
    • 5
  • Takanari Kitazono
    • 1
  • Makoto Hashizume
    • 2
    • 5
    • 8
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Medical InnovationKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal MedicineIwate Medical UniversityMoriokaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Advanced Medical Initiatives, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  7. 7.Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  8. 8.Department of Advanced Medical Initiatives, Faculty of Medical SciencesKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations