Underwater vs. Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Retrospective Analysis from a German High-Volume Center.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-04 DOI:10.1055/a-2633-6238
Mousa Ayoub, Sandra Nagl, Anna Muzalyova, Christoph Römmele, Oscar Cahyadi, Daniel Robert Quast, Helmut Messmann, Alanna Ebigbo
{"title":"Underwater vs. Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Retrospective Analysis from a German High-Volume Center.","authors":"Mousa Ayoub, Sandra Nagl, Anna Muzalyova, Christoph Römmele, Oscar Cahyadi, Daniel Robert Quast, Helmut Messmann, Alanna Ebigbo","doi":"10.1055/a-2633-6238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established technique for the resection of early neoplasia in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). A further development of this technique is the resection under isotonic saline solution (underwater ESD or uESD), also referred to as Saline Immersion Therapeutic Endoscopy (SITE). Potential advantages include faster submucosal access and a reduced rate of intraprocedural complications, particularly submucosal bleeding. The primary objective of this retrospective, single-centre analysis was to provide the first data from Germany concerning the efficacy and safety of uESD and compare it to conventional ESD (cESD).This retrospective study analysed data from patients who underwent either uESD (n=36) or cESD (n=36). The control group (cESD) included lesions of similar location and size. Lesion selection was validated using propensity score matching. Treatment duration, complication rate, en-bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and recurrence rate were compared.A total of 72 ESD procedures were performed in 72 patients (36 undergoing uESD and 36 cESD). Per group, 11 procedures were performed in the esophagus, 3 in the stomach, 16 in the colon and 6 in the rectum. The median lesion size was 40 × 30 mm for uESD and 45 × 30 mm for cESD (p = 0.653). The median procedure time was similar (uESD: 77 minutes, cESD: 75 minutes, p = 0.088). The en-bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups, and the R0 resection rate was 94.4% (uESD) vs. 91.7% (cESD). The complication rate was low, with one post-ESD stricture in the uESD group (2.8%) and two post-ESD bleedings in the cESD group (5.6%) (p = 1.000). No postinterventional perforations occurred in either group.uESD is as effective and safe as cESD. Both techniques achieve high technical and clinical success rates with low complication rates. Future prospective studies should evaluate potential intraoperative advantages of uESD, such as the speed of submucosal entry and possible intraprocedural complications (e.g., bleeding, muscle injury).</p>","PeriodicalId":23853,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie","volume":"63 8","pages":"844-850"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2633-6238","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established technique for the resection of early neoplasia in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). A further development of this technique is the resection under isotonic saline solution (underwater ESD or uESD), also referred to as Saline Immersion Therapeutic Endoscopy (SITE). Potential advantages include faster submucosal access and a reduced rate of intraprocedural complications, particularly submucosal bleeding. The primary objective of this retrospective, single-centre analysis was to provide the first data from Germany concerning the efficacy and safety of uESD and compare it to conventional ESD (cESD).This retrospective study analysed data from patients who underwent either uESD (n=36) or cESD (n=36). The control group (cESD) included lesions of similar location and size. Lesion selection was validated using propensity score matching. Treatment duration, complication rate, en-bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and recurrence rate were compared.A total of 72 ESD procedures were performed in 72 patients (36 undergoing uESD and 36 cESD). Per group, 11 procedures were performed in the esophagus, 3 in the stomach, 16 in the colon and 6 in the rectum. The median lesion size was 40 × 30 mm for uESD and 45 × 30 mm for cESD (p = 0.653). The median procedure time was similar (uESD: 77 minutes, cESD: 75 minutes, p = 0.088). The en-bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups, and the R0 resection rate was 94.4% (uESD) vs. 91.7% (cESD). The complication rate was low, with one post-ESD stricture in the uESD group (2.8%) and two post-ESD bleedings in the cESD group (5.6%) (p = 1.000). No postinterventional perforations occurred in either group.uESD is as effective and safe as cESD. Both techniques achieve high technical and clinical success rates with low complication rates. Future prospective studies should evaluate potential intraoperative advantages of uESD, such as the speed of submucosal entry and possible intraprocedural complications (e.g., bleeding, muscle injury).

水下与常规内镜粘膜下解剖:来自德国高容量中心的回顾性分析。
内镜下粘膜夹层(ESD)是一种成熟的技术,用于切除胃肠道(GIT)的早期肿瘤。这项技术的进一步发展是在等渗盐水溶液下切除(水下ESD或uESD),也被称为盐水浸泡治疗性内窥镜(SITE)。潜在的优势包括更快的粘膜下通路和减少术中并发症的发生率,特别是粘膜下出血。本回顾性单中心分析的主要目的是提供来自德国的关于使用ESD的有效性和安全性的第一批数据,并将其与传统ESD (cESD)进行比较。本回顾性研究分析了使用esd (n=36)或cESD (n=36)患者的数据。对照组(cESD)包括相似位置和大小的病变。病变选择使用倾向评分匹配进行验证。比较治疗时间、并发症发生率、整体切除率、R0切除率、复发率。72例患者共进行了72次ESD手术(36例接受了usesd, 36例接受了cESD)。每组11例食道,3例胃,16例结肠,6例直肠。病变中值为:uESD为40 × 30 mm, cESD为45 × 30 mm (p = 0.653)。中位手术时间相似(uESD: 77分钟,cESD: 75分钟,p = 0.088)。两组整体切除率均为100%,R0切除率分别为94.4% (uESD)和91.7% (cESD)。并发症发生率低,usd组发生1例esd后狭窄(2.8%),cESD组发生2例esd后出血(5.6%)(p = 1.000)。两组均未发生介入后穿孔。uESD与cESD一样有效和安全。两种技术均具有较高的技术和临床成功率,并发症发生率低。未来的前瞻性研究应评估使用esd的潜在术中优势,如粘膜下进入的速度和可能的术中并发症(如出血、肌肉损伤)。
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
Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie
Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
562
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie ist seit über 50 Jahren die führende deutsche Fachzeitschrift auf dem Gebiet der Gastroenterologie. Sie richtet sich an Gastroenterologen und alle anderen gastroenterologisch interessierten Ärzte. Als offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten sowie der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie informiert sie zuverlässig und aktuell über die wichtigen Neuerungen und Entwicklungen in der Gastroenterologie.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信