Endoscopic mucosal resection with an additional working channel (EMR+) in a porcine ex vivo model: a novel technique to improve en bloc resection rate of snare polypectomy

Abstract

Background and study aims Recently, a new external additional working channel (AWC) was introduced by which conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be improved to a technique termed “EMR+”. We first evaluated this novel technique in comparison to classical EMR in flat lesions.

Methods The trial was prospectively conducted in an ex vivo animal model with porcine stomachs placed into the EASIE-R simulator. Prior to intervention, standardized lesions were set by coagulation dots, measuring 1, 2, 3 or 4 cm.

Results Overall, 152 procedures were performed. EMR and EMR+ were both very reliable in 1-cm lesions, each showing en bloc resection rates of 100 %. EMR+ en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in 2-cm lesions (95.44 % vs. 54.55 %, P = 0.02), in 3-cm lesions (86.36 % vs. 18.18 %, P < 0.01) and also in 4-cm lesions (60.00 % vs. 0 %, P < 0.01). Perforations occurred only in EMR+ procedures in 4-cm lesions (3 of 20; 15 %).

Conclusions With its grasp-and-snare technique, EMR+ facilitates en bloc resection of larger lesions compared to conventional EMR. In lesions 2 cm and larger, EMR+ has demonstrated advantages, especially concerning en bloc resection rate. At 3 cm, EMR+ reaches its best discriminatory power whereas EMR+ has inherent limits at 4 cm and in lesions of that size, other techniques such as ESD or surgery should be considered.

^* These authors contributed equally.

• References

• 1 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 2 Wang J, Zhang XH, Ge J. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 8282-8287
• 3 Holmes I, Friedland S. Endoscopic Mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for large polyps: a western colonoscopist's view. Clin Endosc 2016; 49: 454-456
• 4 Meier B, Caca K, Fischer A. et al. Endoscopic management of colorectal adenomas. Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30: 592-597
• 5 Zhan T, Hielscher T, Hahn F. et al. Risk factors for local recurrence of large, flat colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection. Digestion 2016; 93: 311-317
• 6 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
• 7 Ono S, Fujishiro M, Niimi K. et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 860-866
• 8 Nakamoto S, Sakai Y, Kasanuki J. et al. Indications for the use of endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer in Japan: a comparative study with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 746-750
• 9 Tamegai Y, Saito Y, Masaki N. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: a safe technique for colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 418-422
• 10 Wedi E, Knoop RF, Jung C. et al. Use of an additional working channel for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR+) of a pedunculated sessile serrated adenoma in the sigmoid colon. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 279-280
• 11 Wedi E, Orlandini B, Gromski M. et al. Full-thickness resection device for complex colorectal lesions in high-risk patients as a last-resort endoscopic treatment: initial clinical experience and review of the current literature. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 103-108
• 12 Schöfl R, Buchmeier B, Hauder G. Adaptation of the Erlangen active simulator for interventional endoscopy (EASIE) model for transmural pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 100
• 13 Hochberger J, Matthes K, Maiss J. et al. Training with the compactEASIE biologic endoscopy simulator significantly improves hemostatic technical skill of gastroenterology fellows: a randomized controlled comparison with clinical endoscopy training alone. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 204-215
• 14 Schmidt A, Bauerfeind P, Gubler C. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum with a novel over-the-scope device: first experience. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 719-725
• 15 Knoop RF, Richer-Schrag HJ, Thimme R. et al. Use of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) to prevent bleeding after colonic polypectomy in a patient with a left ventricular assist device. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E749-E753
• 16 Richter-Schrag HJ, Walker C, Thimme R. et al. [Full thickness resection device (FTRD) : Experience and outcome for benign neoplasms of the rectum and colon]. Chirurg 2016; 87: 316-325
• 17 Schurr MO, Baur FE, Krautwald M. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection and clip defect closure in the colon with the new FTRD system: experimental study. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 2434-2441
• 18 von Renteln D, Kratt T, Rosch T. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon by using a clip-and-cut technique: an animal study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1108-1114
• 19 von Renteln D, Schmidt A, Vassiliou MC. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection using a grasp-and-snare technique. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 475-480
• 20 Shetty A, Suarez AL, Dufault DL. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with grasp-and-snare technique for challenging lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 738-739
• 21 de Melo Jr. SW, Cleveland P, Raimondo M. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with the grasp-and-snare technique through a double-channel endoscope in humans. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 349-352