Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2544-3279
Keitaro Takahashi, Takuya Iwama, Kazuyuki Tanaka, Yuki Miyazawa, Shohei Kuroda, Masashi Horiuchi, Seisuke Saito, Momotaro Muto, Katsuyoshi Ando, Nobuhiro Ueno, Shin Kashima, Kentaro Moriichi, Hiroki Tanabe, Mikihiro Fujiya
{"title":"Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study.","authors":"Keitaro Takahashi, Takuya Iwama, Kazuyuki Tanaka, Yuki Miyazawa, Shohei Kuroda, Masashi Horiuchi, Seisuke Saito, Momotaro Muto, Katsuyoshi Ando, Nobuhiro Ueno, Shin Kashima, Kentaro Moriichi, Hiroki Tanabe, Mikihiro Fujiya","doi":"10.1055/a-2544-3279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>To address the challenges of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), conversion to snare resection (rescue-snare ESD: rSnare), a variant of hybrid ESD, is commonly proposed. However, rSnare is associated with a lower en bloc resection rate compared with conventional ESD. Traction-assisted ESD has emerged as a technique to facilitate dissection, but its effectiveness as a rescue method remains unclear. This study was the first to compare the effectiveness of rSnare and rescue-traction-assisted ESD (rTraction).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study involved 1464 consecutive lesions from 1372 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms across eight institutions. Among these, 162 lesions required rescue methods of rSnare or rTraction. After propensity score matching, 88 lesions treated with either rSnare or rTraction were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rTraction group exhibited significantly higher en bloc resection and R0 resection rates (93.2% and 77.3%, respectively) compared with the rSnare group (45.5% and 38.6%, respectively). However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the rTraction group (122.3 ± 72.5 min) compared with the rSnare group (92.2 ± 54.2 min). In the rTraction group, univariable and multivariable analyses identified traction initiation time > 75 minutes as the only independent predictor of procedure durations exceeding 120 minutes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Utilizing a traction device as a rescue technique in difficult colorectal ESD resulted in higher en bloc and R0 resection rates compared with conversion to snare resection. Initiating traction within 75 minutes may contribute to reducing overall procedure time for challenging colorectal ESD cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a25443279"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2544-3279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: To address the challenges of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), conversion to snare resection (rescue-snare ESD: rSnare), a variant of hybrid ESD, is commonly proposed. However, rSnare is associated with a lower en bloc resection rate compared with conventional ESD. Traction-assisted ESD has emerged as a technique to facilitate dissection, but its effectiveness as a rescue method remains unclear. This study was the first to compare the effectiveness of rSnare and rescue-traction-assisted ESD (rTraction).

Patients and methods: This retrospective study involved 1464 consecutive lesions from 1372 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms across eight institutions. Among these, 162 lesions required rescue methods of rSnare or rTraction. After propensity score matching, 88 lesions treated with either rSnare or rTraction were analyzed.

Results: The rTraction group exhibited significantly higher en bloc resection and R0 resection rates (93.2% and 77.3%, respectively) compared with the rSnare group (45.5% and 38.6%, respectively). However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the rTraction group (122.3 ± 72.5 min) compared with the rSnare group (92.2 ± 54.2 min). In the rTraction group, univariable and multivariable analyses identified traction initiation time > 75 minutes as the only independent predictor of procedure durations exceeding 120 minutes.

Conclusions: Utilizing a traction device as a rescue technique in difficult colorectal ESD resulted in higher en bloc and R0 resection rates compared with conversion to snare resection. Initiating traction within 75 minutes may contribute to reducing overall procedure time for challenging colorectal ESD cases.

牵引与圈套作为具有挑战性的结肠内镜粘膜下夹层抢救方法的比较:倾向评分匹配研究。
背景和研究目的:为了解决结肠内镜下粘膜下剥离(ESD)困难的挑战,通常提出转换为陷阱切除(rescue-snare ESD: rSnare),这是混合型ESD的一种变种。然而,与传统ESD相比,rSnare的整体切除率较低。牵引辅助ESD已成为一种促进解剖的技术,但其作为抢救方法的有效性尚不清楚。该研究首次比较了rSnare和救援牵引辅助ESD(牵引)的有效性。患者和方法:这项回顾性研究包括来自8个机构的1372例浅表结直肠肿瘤患者的1464个连续病变。其中162个病变需要rSnare或rTraction的抢救方法。倾向评分匹配后,对88个病变进行rSnare或rTraction治疗。结果:与rSnare组(45.5%和38.6%)相比,rSnare组(93.2%和77.3%)的整体切除率和R0切除率显著高于rSnare组(93.2%和77.3%)。然而,牵引组的平均手术时间(122.3±72.5 min)明显长于rSnare组(92.2±54.2 min)。在牵引组,单变量和多变量分析确定牵引起始时间bbbb75分钟是手术持续时间超过120分钟的唯一独立预测因子。结论:与转圈套切除术相比,使用牵引装置作为难治性结直肠ESD的抢救技术可获得更高的整体和R0切除率。在75分钟内开始牵引可能有助于减少具有挑战性的结肠直肠ESD病例的总体手术时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信