Search

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions was invented in Japan, but postoperative management including hospital stay has not been reconsidered due to the Japanese insurance system. To explore appropriate postoperative management after colorectal ESD, we reviewed short-term outcomes after ESD in non-selected consecutive patients.Patients who underwent colorectal ESD from April 2013 to September 2020 in one institution were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events stratified by the Clavien-Dindo classification with five grades. A logistic regression model with the Firth procedure was applied to investigate predictors of severe (grade III or greater) adverse events.A total of 330 patients (female 40%, male 60%; median 72 years; IQR 65-80 years) with colorectal lesions (median 30 mm, IQR 23-40 mm; colon 77%, rectum 23%; serrated lesion 4%, adenoma 47%, mucosal cancer 30%, invasive cancer 18%) was evaluated. The en bloc resection rate was 97%. The median dissection time was 58 min (IQR: 38-86). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 3%, all successfully treated by endoscopic clipping. No delayed perforations occurred. Postprocedural bleeding occurred in 3% on days 1-10 (median day 2); all were controlled endoscopically. Severe adverse events included only delayed bleeding. In analyzing severe adverse events in a multivariate logistic regression model with the Firth procedure, antithrombotic agent use (No serious adverse events occurred in this series. Four days of hospitalization may be too long for the majority of patients after ESD.

Background and study aims Small polyps are occasionally missed during colonoscopy. This study was conducted to validate the diagnostic performance of a polyp-detection algorithm to alert endoscopists to unrecognized lesions. Methods A computer-aided detection (CADe) algorithm was developed based on convolutional neural networks using training data from 1991 still colonoscopy images from 283 subjects with adenomatous polyps. The CADe algorithm was evaluated on a validation dataset including 50 short videos with 1-2 polyps (3.5 ± 1.5 mm, range 2-8 mm) and 50 videos without polyps. Two expert colonoscopists and two physicians in training separately read the same videos, blinded to the presence of polyps. The CADe algorithm was also evaluated using eight full videos with polyps and seven full videos without a polyp. Results The per-video sensitivity of CADe for polyp detection was 88% and the per-frame false-positive rate was 2.8%, with a confidence level of ≥30%. The per-video sensitivity of both experts was 88%, and the sensitivities of the two physicians in training were 84% and 76%. For each reader, the frames with missed polyps appearing on short videos were significantly less than the frames with detected polyps, but no trends were observed regarding polyp size, morphology or color. For full video readings, per-polyp sensitivity was 100% with a per-frame false-positive rate of 1.7%, and per-frame specificity of 98.3%. Conclusions The sensitivity of CADe to detect small polyps was almost equivalent to experts and superior to physicians in training. A clinical trial using CADe is warranted.

OBJECTIVES Colonic spasm can interfere with colonoscopy, but antispasmodic agents can cause complications. This study aimed to assess the inhibitory effect of topical lidocaine compared with a placebo control. METHODS In five tertiary-care hospitals in Japan, 128 patients requiring endoscopic resection of a colorectal lesion were enrolled and randomly and double-blindly allocated to colonoscopy with topical administration of 2% lidocaine solution 20mL (LID, n = 64) or normal saline 20mL (control, n = 64). During colonoscopy, the assigned solution was applied with a spray catheter near the lesion and the area was observed for three minutes. primary endpoint was the inhibitory effect at three time-points (1, 2 and 3 minutes after dispersion), using a three-point scale (excellent, fair, poor). Secondary endpoints were rebound spasm and adverse events. All endpoints were scored in real time. Serum lidocaine levels were measured in 32 patients (LID 16, control 16). RESULTS There were no significant differences between groups in patient demographics. At all time-points, the proportion of patients with "excellent" scores was greater in LID group than control group, with significant differences observed at 2 minutes (p = 0.02) and 3 minutes (p = 0.02). In LID group, the rate of "excellent" scores increased by 12.5% at 2 minutes and was maintained at 3 minutes. Rebound spasm did not occur in LID group, compared with 15.6% of control group (p = 0.001). There were no adverse events in LID group. All serum lidocaine levels were below detectable levels. CONCLUSIONS Topical lidocaine is an effective and safe method for suppressing colorectal spasm during colonoscopy (UMIN000024733).