Search

Background and Aim: Post‐endoscopic submucosal dissection coagulation syndrome (PECS) is a recognized complication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); however, there is a lack of interventions for preventing PECS. We therefore conducted a prospective study to evaluate the utility of maXium, a novel electrosurgical unit, for preventing PECS. Methods: This single‐center, prospective cohort study prospectively enrolled patients undergoing colorectal ESD. The voltage and power of the electrosurgical units were measured. PECS was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 30 mm, an increase of VAS ≥ 20 mm from baseline, body temperature ≥ 37.5°C, or white blood cell count ≥ 10 000/μL after ESD. PECS was classified into type I (without extra‐luminal air) and type II (with peri‐luminal air). The primary endpoint was the incidence of PECS. A sample size of 92 patients was required to ensure the upper limit of the 90% CI for the incidence of PECS was less than 15%. Results: At resistances greater than 400 Ω, the maXium unit allowed submucosal dissection with lower power than with the VIO300D unit. Ninety‐one patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the final study analysis. The incidence of PECS was 16% (90% CI, 10–23%), comprising type I (11%) and type II (5%) PECS. Simple extra‐luminal air without PECS was observed in 7% of patients. Conclusion: Use of the maXium electrosurgical unit did not reduce the incidence of PECS after colorectal ESD; however, the maXium unit had equivalent performance to a conventional electrosurgical unit used for colorectal ESD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Various complications of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been reported, including bleeding, penetration, perforation, and coagulation syndrome. However, the occurrence of bowel obstruction after ESD is rare. We report a case of adhesive bowel obstruction after ESD for a laterally spreading tumor in the sigmoid colon. The 35‐mm tumor was successfully removed by ESD without intraoperative complications. The patient had a fever, lower abdominal pain, and a small amount of bloody stool the day after ESD. Endoscopy revealed minor bleeding from the ESD scar, which was treated by hemostatic clips. Pathological analysis showed adenocarcinoma was exposed to the vertical margin; therefore, the resection was non‐curative. At 39 days after ESD and 36 days after discharge, the patient had abdominal pain and nausea. She was readmitted with a diagnosis of adhesive bowel obstruction. Conservative treatment was ineffective; therefore, she underwent sigmoidectomy combined with partial resection of the small intestine because of small intestinal stenosis caused by inflammation. The pathological examination showed localized peritonitis around the sigmoid colon where ESD was performed. There was more fibrosis along the serous surface of the small intestine than on the sigmoid colon. We concluded that there was a micro‐perforation that could not be detected by endoscopy or physical examination. This case indicates that adhesive bowel obstruction may occur as a complication of ESD.