Search

Competing Interests: Jérôme Rivory, Jean Grimaldi, Louis Jean Masgnaux, Mathieu Pioche are co-founders of the ATRACT devices and co. Nothing to declare for the other authors.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Introduction:  The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO 2 ) generated by an SBCE procedure., Methods:  Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts., Results:  The capsule itself (4 g) accounted for < 6 % of the total product weight. Packaging (43-119 g) accounted for 9 %-97 % of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5 g [4 %-6 %]) and paper instructions (11-50 g [up to 40 %]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20 kgCO 2 , with 0.04 kgCO 2 (0.2 %) attributable to the capsule itself and 18 kgCO 2 (94.7 %) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98 kgCO 2 to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e. g. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76 % of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63 % would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible., Conclusion:  The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions., Competing Interests: M. Pioche is a consultant for Olympus and a trainer for Olympus, Pentax, Norgine, Boston, and Cook. X. Dray is co-founder and a shareholder of Augmented Endoscopy; he provides consultancy for Norgine and Provepharma, and lectures and demonstrations for Alfasigma, Bouchara Recordati, Fujifilm, Medtronic, Norgine, and Sandoz. E. Rodriguez de Santiago has had educational and advisory roles for Olympus, educational roles at Apollo Endosurgery and Norgine, and has received conference fees from Norgine and Casen.J.A. Cunha Neves, H. Pohl, M.-Q. Lê, R.Grau, C. Yzet, M. Mochet, J. Jacques, T. Wallenhorst, J. Rivory, N. Siret, A.-L. Peillet, J.-B. Chevaux, F. Mion, U. Chaput, P. Jacob, D. Grinberg, J.-C. Saurin, R. Baddeley, and P.-J. Cottinet declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation., Methods: All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored., Results: 106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03)., Conclusion: Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty., Competing Interests: C. Yzet is a consultant and lecturer for Abbvie, Takeda, Jansen, Amgen, and Galapagos. T. Wallenhorst has received honoraria for ESD training sessions from Olympus and Fujifilm, and lectures for Mayoli. J. Jacques has provided ESD training sessions for Olympus, Fuji, Erbe, Pentax Medical, and Lumendi, and lectures for Abbvie, Janssen, and Norgine. J. Rivory has received honoraria for training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection from Olympus and Cook Medical. M. Schaefer has received honoraria for training session from Boston Scientific, and has received invitations to congresses from Olympus, Cook, Cousin Medical, Boston, Pentax, Abbvie, MSD, Amgen, and Norgine. M. Pioche has received honoraria for training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection from Olympus, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Pentax Medical; honoraria for training sessions in endoscopic characterization from Norgine and Provepharm; invitation to UEGW from AlfaSigma; and owns a patent for the Hospices Civils de Lyon IPEFIX device. M. Figueiredo, F. Rostain, L.J. Masgnaux, J. Grimaldi, R. Legros, P. Lafeuille, J. Albouys, and F. Subtil declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION:  ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations., Competing Interests: L.-J. Masgnaux, J. Grimaldi, J. Rivory, T. Wallenhorst, R. Legros, J. Jacques, and M. Pioche are cofounders of A-TRACT Device & Co. T. Ponchon, C. Yzet, A. Lupu, and F. Rostain declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: LJM: Co-Founder of A-TRACT device & co.CY: consultant and lectures for Abbvie, Takeda, Jansen, Amgen, Galapagos.JR: Honorary for Training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection for Olympus, Cook Medical, Co-Founder of A-TRACT device & co.MP: Honorary for Training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection for Olympus, Cook Medical, Boston scientific, Pentax Medical. Co-Founder of A-TRACT device & co.Honorary for Training sessions in endoscopic characterization with Norgine, Provepharm. Uegw invitation by AlfaSigma. Patent of our institution Hospices civils de Lyon for IPEFIX device.JJ: ESD training sessions: Olympus, Fuji, Erbe, Pentax, lumendi. Lectures: Abbvie, Janssen, norgine. Co-Founder of A-TRACT device & co.

Competing Interests: A patent for the device has been requested by our institution.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Clara Yzet received fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Galapagos, Jansen, Pfizer.

Competing Interests: Clara Yzet: Abbvie, Takeda, Jansen, Amgen, Galapagos.

Competing Interests: Louis-Jean Masgnaux, Timothée Wallenhorst, Jérémie Jacques, Jérôme Rivory and Mathieu Pioche are cofounders of the company A-tract device & Co.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: J. Jacques, L. J. Masgnaux, T. Wallenhorst, and M. Pioche are co-funders of the A-TRACT devices and company. E. De Cristofaro, P. Lafeuille, and C. Yzet declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Our institution Hospices civils de Lyon has deposed a patent on this device.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: J. Rivory, L. J. Masgnaux, J. Grimaldi, and M. Pioche are co-funders of the A-TRACT devices. E. De Cristofaro, C. Yzet, and S. Leblanc declare that they have no conflict of interest.

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively ( P  = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD ( P  < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size ( P  = 0.02 and P  < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION:  ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative., Competing Interests: C. Yzet has received consultancy and lecture fees from Abbvie, Takeda, Jansen, Amgen, and Galapagos. Y. Le Baleur has provided training sessions for Ovesco Endoscopy AG. J. Jacques has provided ESD training sessions for Olympus, Fuji, Erbe, Pentax, and Lumendi and has received lecture fees from Abbvie, Janssen, and Norgine. M. Barret is on the boards of Norgine and Ambu, and has received research grants from Pentax. M. Shaefer has provided training sessions for Boston Scientific, and has received congress invitations from Olympus, Cook, Cousin Medical, Boston Scientific, Pentax, Abbvie, MSD, Amgen, and Norgine. S. Leblanc has received consulting and lecture fees from Norgine, Olympus, Alfasigma, and Ovesco. J. Rivory has provided training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection for Olympus, and Cook Medical.E. Coron had a speaker's and consultancy agreement with Fujifilm. G. Vanbiervliet has provided consultancy for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Fujifilm Inc., and Ambu, and has provided expert lectures/medical training for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Mayloy Spindler, Pentax Inc., Fujifilm Inc., and Tillotts. M. Pioche has provided training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection for Olympus, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Pentax Medical, and in endoscopic characterization with Norgine and Provepharm; he received an invitation to UEGW from AlfaSigma; he holds a patent with his institution, Hospices civils de Lyon, for the IPEFIX device.J. Albouys, P. Mandengue, E. Abou Ali, J.-B. Chevaux, V. Lepillez, J. Privat, T. Degand, T. Wallenhorst, U. Chaput, A. Berger, K. Aziz, G. Rahmi, E. Kull, L. Caillo, S. Koch, and F. Subtil declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is potentially a curative treatment for T1 colorectal cancer under certain conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of ESD for lesions with a suspicion of focal deep invasion., Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasia displaying a focal (< 15 mm) deep invasive pattern (FDIP) that were treated by ESD were included. We excluded ulcerated lesions (Paris III), lesions with distant metastasis, and clearly advanced tumors (tumoral strictures)., Results: 124 patients benefited from 126 diagnostic dissection attempts for FDIP lesions. Dissection was feasible in 120/126 attempts (95.2 %) and, where possible, the en bloc and R0 resection rates were 95.8 % (115/120) and 76.7 % (92/120), respectively. Thirty-three resections (26.2 %) were for very low risk tumors, so considered curative, and 38 (30.2 %) were for low risk lesions. Noncurative R0 resections were for lesions with lymphatic or vascular invasion (LVI; n = 8), or significant budding (n = 9), and LVI + budding combination (n = 4)., Conclusion: ESD is feasible and safe for colorectal lesions with an FDIP ≤ 15 mm. It was curative in 26.6 % of patients and could be a valid option for a further 30.6 % of patients with low risk T1 cancers, especially for frail patients with co-morbidities., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Clara Yzet received consultant and lecture fees from Abbvie, Takeda, Galapagos, Janssen and Ferring.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Clara Yzet has received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, and Takeda. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) fistula is a life-threatening condition and a therapeutic challenge. Endoscopic approaches include mucosal abrasion, clip closure, or stent diversion, with moderate success rates in the long term. We assessed whether fistula endoscopic submucosal dissection with clip closure (FESDC) could lead to complete resolution of fistulas even after failure of previous endoscopic therapy., Methods: Patients with GI fistulas, including those with previous failed treatment, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was long-term (> 3 months) success of fistula healing. Secondary outcomes included technical success, safety, and factors associated with FESDC success., Results: 23 patients (13 refractory 57 %) were included. Tight immediate sealing was achieved in 19 patients (83 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 61 %-95 %). Long-term closure was achieved in 14 patients (61 %; 95 %CI 39 %-80 %), with median follow-up of 20 months. Complications occurred in two patients (9 %). Previous local malignancy ( P  = 0.08) and radiotherapy ( P  = 0.047) were associated with a higher risk of failure., Conclusion: This novel FESDC strategy was demonstrated to be safe and feasible for permanent endoscopic closure of GI fistulas. Further studies are warranted to determine the place of this technique in the management of chronic GI fistula., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: None