Search

Aim: The colonoscopic‐assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL‐WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL‐WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR. Method: A single‐centre 90‐day 'in‐hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL‐WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL‐WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period. Results: Colonoscopic‐assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL‐WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL‐WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL‐WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL‐WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden.Methods: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior.Discussion: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm. Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice. Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the 'none' option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case. Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the 'none' option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p <.01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists. Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new, flat-based over-the-scope clip (Padlock Clip) for colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR). Patients and methods We prospectively included 26 patients with lesions < 20 mm. Indications for eFTR were re-resection of the scar of a low risk malignant polyp (n = 11), recurrent adenoma in a non-lifting scar (n = 10), non-lifting polyp (n = 4), and an adenoma located in a diverticulum (n = 1). Results Technical success rate and full-thickness resection rate were 100 % (26/26) and 92 % (24/26), respectively. Median procedure time was 43 minutes (IQR 27 - 56). No complications occurred during the procedure; 3 complications (12 %) occurred within 48 hours, of which one was a perforation requiring laparoscopic suturing. Specimen volumes from eFTR of scar tissue where the original polyp had been ≥ 20 mm (n = 13) were smaller compared with those from non-scar resections or scars where the original polyps had been < 20 mm (n = 13) (median 0.8 vs. 1.5 cm3, P = 0.03). Conclusions In this first series of colorectal eFTR using the Padlock Clip, feasibility was demonstrated. It was relatively safe in view of surgery as the alternative treatment, but could still benefit from technical refinement. Future studies should explore for which indication this technique is most suitable.Trial Registration: NTR5562 (Dutch Trial Register). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is also questionable whether placement of the double-pigtail catheter is necessary when only the pulling technique is used rather than applying suction: with suction, adjacent tissue may also be drawn into the cap but this is unlikely to occur when only traction is used. During EFTR, the tissue is pulled into the cap with a grasping forceps, as far as possible but to a level that the white ring of the full-thickness resection device system can still be visualized to assure successful placement of the OTS clip. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is increasingly used for local resection of suspected T1 colorectal carcinoma (CRC), completing scar excision after an R1/Rx resection of pT1 CRC, and for nonlifting residual or recurrent adenoma. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Study Aims: Adenoma miss rate during colonoscopy has become a widely acknowledged proxy measure for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Among other reasons, this can happen because of inadequate visualization of the proximal aspects of colonic folds and flexures. EndoRings (EndoAid Ltd., Caesarea, Israel) is a silicone-rubber device that is fitted onto the distal end of the colonoscope. Its flexible circular rings engage and mechanically stretch colonic folds during withdrawal. The primary aim of this study was to compare adenoma miss rates between standard colonoscopy and colonoscopy using EndoRings.Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, tandem colonoscopy study, we performed same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with EndoRings followed by standard colonoscopy, or vice versa.Results: After exclusion of 10 patients for protocol violations, 116 patients (38.8% female; mean age 58.7) remained for analysis. The adenoma miss rate of EndoRings colonoscopy (7/67; 10.4%) was significantly lower (P<0.001) compared with standard colonoscopy (28/58; 48.3%). Similar results were found for polyp miss rates: EndoRings (9.1%) and standard colonoscopy (52.8%; P<0.001). Mean cecal intubation times (9.3 vs. 8.4 minutes; P=0.142) and withdrawal times (7.4 vs. 7.2 minutes; P=0.286), respectively, were not significantly different between EndoRings and standard colonoscopy. Mean total procedure time was longer with EndoRings than with standard colonoscopy (21.6 vs. 18.5 minutes, P=0.001) as more polyps were removed.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that colonoscopy with EndoRings has lower adenoma and polyp miss rates than standard colonoscopy, which may improve the efficacy particularly of screening and surveillance colonoscopies. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01955122. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers information on cold snare polypectomy (CSP) of polyps in the colon, its complication and discusses comparison between Hot and cold snare polypectomy.

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.Methods: The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.Discussion: The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683 . Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]