Search

Purpose: Since colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires higher-level skills than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), it is recommended to acquire sufficient experience in gastric ESD prior to attempting colorectal ESD. We evaluated the ability of experienced endoscopists with limited experience in gastric ESD to perform colorectal ESD., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 120 colorectal ESDs performed by two endoscopists who had expertise in colonoscopy and colorectal EMR but experience of fewer than five gastric ESDs. Main outcomes were the en bloc resection rate with tumor-free margins (R0 resection rate) and adverse events rate. Using only clinical characteristics prior to ESD, we also identified factors affecting outcomes., Results: A total of 113 patients (94.2 %) received en bloc resection, and the R0 resection rate was 80.0 % (96/120). Perforation and postoperative hemorrhage occurred in eight (6.7 %) and two (1.7 %) patients, respectively. Dividing the 120 cases into three learning phases, R0 resection and perforation rates improved from 77.5 % (31/40) and 12.5 % (5/40) in phase 1 to 85.0 % (34/40) and 2.5 % (1/40) in phase 3, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that lesions at junctions (dentate line, sigmoid-descending junction, splenic flexure, hepatic flexure, ileocecal valve) and lesions with factors reflecting fibrosis in the submucosal layer (based on endoscopic findings before ESD) were significantly correlated with R0 resection failure, with adjusted odds ratios of 10.5 (95 % CI 2.1-67.6) and 10.4 (2.7-48.6), respectively., Conclusions: Colorectal ESD is feasible for experienced endoscopists with limited experience in gastric ESD. Novices should avoid lesions at junctions or those with factors reflecting fibrosis.

Background: The efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported mainly from Japanese referral centers. However, ESD is technically difficult and associated with a higher risk of adverse events than endoscopic mucosal resection, especially for novices performing colorectal ESD with little experience in gastric ESD. The current study evaluated the results of colorectal ESD during the clinical learning curve by retrospectively examining the results of colorectal ESD performed by four endoscopists who had experience with fewer than five cases of gastric ESD., Methods: The study retrospectively investigated the first 20 cases managed by each endoscopist, for a total of 80 cases. The main outcome measurements were procedural time, en bloc resection rate with tumor-free margins (R0 resection rate), and adverse events rate. From among clinicopathologic characteristics, factors that affected main outcome measurements were identified., Results: Of the 80 cases (56 colonic and 24 rectal lesions; 44 granular laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) and 23 nongranular LSTs, 5 depressed, and 8 protruding), 54 cases (67.5%) had resection using a standard tip-type knife, and 26 cases (32.5%) had resection using a small scissors-type knife. The mean tumor diameter was 34.9 ± 14.1 mm, and the mean procedural time was 108.8 ± 53.4 min. The resection in 75 cases (93.8%) was performed en bloc, and the R0 resection rate was 75% (60/80). Perforation occurred in six cases (7.5%) and postoperative hemorrhage in three cases (3.8%). Multivariate analyses showed that colonic lesions and larger lesions (≥40 mm) were significantly associated with prolonged procedural time (≥90 min). Use of the scissors-type knife was significantly associated with a higher R0 resection rate. Perforation occurred only in colonic lesions., Conclusions: For novices in colorectal ESD, beginning with rectal and smaller lesions may be advisable. Also, using scissors-type knives may increase the R0 resection rate.

Background: Clinical demand for total colonoscopy (TCS) is increasing. Improvement of the cecal intubation rate and shortening of the examination time would expand the capacity for TCS., Objective: To assess the efficacy of a transparent hood attached to the tip of a colonoscope for cecal intubation in TCS., Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study., Setting: Single tertiary-referral center., Interventions: TCS., Main Outcome Measurements: Cecal intubation time and rate, complications, patient discomfort, and detection rate of colonic polyps., Methods: Patients who were to undergo screening and/or surveillance TCS for colorectal cancer were invited to participate in the study. Cecal intubation time and rate, complications, patient discomfort, and detection rate of colonic polyps were evaluated., Results: A total of 592 patients enrolled in this study were randomly allocated to the hood group and no-hood group. The mean (SD) cecal intubation time in the hood group and the no-hood group was 10.2 +/- 12.5 minutes and 13.4 +/- 15.8 minutes, respectively (P = .0241). The effect of its use was more prominent in the expert endoscopists group compared with those with moderate experience. The cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of small polyps in the 2 groups were similar. The grade of patient discomfort was significantly lower in the hood group. No complications were encountered with the use of the hood., Conclusions: Use of a transparent hood on the tip of a colonoscope shortened the time required for cecal intubation and decreased patient discomfort; such use was more effective among experts in shortening the examination time.

The article presents a case study of a 56-year old woman, who was admitted with rectal bleeding. It mentions that colonoscopy showed multiple, smooth surfaced whitish granules in the rectum, wherein every granule has irregular size and measures 3-5 millimeter. Moreover, it notes that the patient went through chemotherapy and radiation therapy including rituximab.