{"title":"凝胶浸泡内镜粘膜下夹层治疗浅表结直肠肿瘤:比较传统内镜粘膜下夹层的回顾性研究","authors":"Kenji Yamauchi, Tomoki Inaba, Takeshi Morimoto, Hugh Shunsuke Colvin, Akira Nakanishi, Shigenao Ishikawa, Masaki Wato","doi":"10.1002/deo2.70221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Gel-immersion endoscopy offers benefits such as buoyancy, traction, and a clear visual field without gas insufflation. While some case reports have described colorectal gel-immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (Gi-ESD), there have been no consecutive case series. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of Gi-ESD.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasms who underwent ESD. Gi-ESD was defined as mucosal incision and submucosal dissection performed under clear gel. The primary outcomes were en bloc and histologic R0 resection rates, whereas the secondary outcomes were procedure time, dissection speed, and adverse events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 260 ESD cases, 29 and 231 were in the Gi-ESD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. Gel was used for submerged or poorly accessible lesions. The Gi-ESD group had a significantly larger tumor diameter (25 mm vs. 18 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.001), a higher rate of lesions in the cecum or ascending colon (55.2% vs. 31.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and more lesions with ESD difficulty factors (24.1% vs. 9.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the en bloc resection (100% vs. 99.1%), histologic R0 resection (96.6% vs. 88.7%), or adverse events. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the histologic R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the Gi-ESD group (100% vs. 82.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.045). Procedure time was significantly longer in the Gi-ESD group (45 vs. 29.5 min, <i>p</i> = 0.006), with no significant difference in dissection speed (14.9 vs. 19.2 mm<sup>2</sup>/min, <i>p</i> = 0.19).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Gi-ESD may be an alternative approach for treating submerged gravity-side or poorly approached colorectal lesions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70221","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gel-immersion Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms: A Retrospective Study Comparing Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection\",\"authors\":\"Kenji Yamauchi, Tomoki Inaba, Takeshi Morimoto, Hugh Shunsuke Colvin, Akira Nakanishi, Shigenao Ishikawa, Masaki Wato\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/deo2.70221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Gel-immersion endoscopy offers benefits such as buoyancy, traction, and a clear visual field without gas insufflation. While some case reports have described colorectal gel-immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (Gi-ESD), there have been no consecutive case series. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of Gi-ESD.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasms who underwent ESD. Gi-ESD was defined as mucosal incision and submucosal dissection performed under clear gel. The primary outcomes were en bloc and histologic R0 resection rates, whereas the secondary outcomes were procedure time, dissection speed, and adverse events.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among 260 ESD cases, 29 and 231 were in the Gi-ESD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. Gel was used for submerged or poorly accessible lesions. The Gi-ESD group had a significantly larger tumor diameter (25 mm vs. 18 mm, <i>p</i> = 0.001), a higher rate of lesions in the cecum or ascending colon (55.2% vs. 31.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and more lesions with ESD difficulty factors (24.1% vs. 9.5%, <i>p</i> < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the en bloc resection (100% vs. 99.1%), histologic R0 resection (96.6% vs. 88.7%), or adverse events. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the histologic R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the Gi-ESD group (100% vs. 82.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.045). Procedure time was significantly longer in the Gi-ESD group (45 vs. 29.5 min, <i>p</i> = 0.006), with no significant difference in dissection speed (14.9 vs. 19.2 mm<sup>2</sup>/min, <i>p</i> = 0.19).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Gi-ESD may be an alternative approach for treating submerged gravity-side or poorly approached colorectal lesions.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DEN open\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70221\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DEN open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
凝胶浸泡内窥镜具有浮力、牵引力和清晰的视野等优点,无需气体注入。虽然一些病例报告描述了结肠直肠凝胶浸泡内镜粘膜下夹层(Gi-ESD),但没有连续的病例系列。本研究旨在阐明Gi-ESD的实用性。方法本研究为单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入连续接受ESD治疗的结直肠肿瘤患者。Gi-ESD定义为在透明凝胶下进行粘膜切开和粘膜下剥离。主要结果是整体和组织学R0切除率,而次要结果是手术时间,剥离速度和不良事件。结果260例ESD中,Gi-ESD组29例,常规ESD组231例。凝胶用于淹没或难以接近的病变。Gi-ESD组肿瘤直径更大(25mm vs. 18mm, p = 0.001),盲肠或升结肠病变发生率更高(55.2% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.01),具有ESD困难因素的病变更多(24.1% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.05)。整体切除(100% vs. 99.1%)、组织学R0切除(96.6% vs. 88.7%)或不良事件方面无显著差异。在倾向评分匹配的队列中,Gi-ESD组的组织学R0切除率明显更高(100% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.045)。Gi-ESD组手术时间明显更长(45 vs. 29.5 min, p = 0.006),而解剖速度无显著差异(14.9 vs. 19.2 mm2/min, p = 0.19)。结论Gi-ESD是一种治疗结肠直肠重力侧浸润性病变或接近不良病变的方法。
Gel-immersion Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms: A Retrospective Study Comparing Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Objectives
Gel-immersion endoscopy offers benefits such as buoyancy, traction, and a clear visual field without gas insufflation. While some case reports have described colorectal gel-immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection (Gi-ESD), there have been no consecutive case series. This study aimed to clarify the usefulness of Gi-ESD.
Methods
This single-center retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasms who underwent ESD. Gi-ESD was defined as mucosal incision and submucosal dissection performed under clear gel. The primary outcomes were en bloc and histologic R0 resection rates, whereas the secondary outcomes were procedure time, dissection speed, and adverse events.
Results
Among 260 ESD cases, 29 and 231 were in the Gi-ESD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. Gel was used for submerged or poorly accessible lesions. The Gi-ESD group had a significantly larger tumor diameter (25 mm vs. 18 mm, p = 0.001), a higher rate of lesions in the cecum or ascending colon (55.2% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.01), and more lesions with ESD difficulty factors (24.1% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the en bloc resection (100% vs. 99.1%), histologic R0 resection (96.6% vs. 88.7%), or adverse events. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the histologic R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the Gi-ESD group (100% vs. 82.6%, p = 0.045). Procedure time was significantly longer in the Gi-ESD group (45 vs. 29.5 min, p = 0.006), with no significant difference in dissection speed (14.9 vs. 19.2 mm2/min, p = 0.19).
Conclusion
Gi-ESD may be an alternative approach for treating submerged gravity-side or poorly approached colorectal lesions.