Electromagnetic assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is more efficient than water-jet assisted and conventional ESD in experimental model

Abstract

Background and study aims The adequate visualization of the dissection line, inside the submucosal layer, supposes the main challenging issue in ESD. For this reason, several counter traction methods have been developed focused on overcoming this handicap. One of which, Magnetic anchor guided – ESD (MG-ESD) is an attractive alternative. However, the usefulness of this approach has been scarcely assessed and compared with other ESD strategies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare three different ESD alternatives in experimental faction.

Methods This was a prospective non-randomized study, in which three different ESD techniques were performed in an ex-vivo gastric porcine model by an endoscopist slight expertise in ESD: conventional ESD, waterjet assisted ESD and MG-ESD. MG-ESD was performed using two different magnets: inner Neodymiun ringed shape magnet attached to the simulated lesions by an endoclip and external electromagnet connected to a Single Output Adjustable 24V/0.3A Power Supply Unit.

Results Forty-six ESD procedures were performed: 24 conventional ESD, 12 waterjet-assisted ESD and 10 MG-ESD. Average size of the simulated lesions was 33.86 mm. No differences in terms of safety and efficacy were registered between the three approaches. Nevertheless, MG-ESD proved to be faster and more efficient than conventional ESD and water-jet assisted ESD (min per cm² 10.85 vs. 7.43 vs. 3,41; P = 0.001).

Conclusions MG-ESD could be a feasible alternative to conventional ESD even at the beginning of the learning curve. Therefore, researches focused on developing appropriate ESD magnetic devices and further comparative studies must be promoted, in order to assess the reliable usefulness of the magnet-assistance in ESD.

• References

• 1 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
• 2 Kato M, Gromski M, Jung Y. et al. The learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental setting. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 154-161
• 3 Lee EJ, Lee JB, Lee SH. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors – 1,000 colorectal ESD cases: one specialized institute's experiences. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 31-39
• 4 Imaeda H, Hosoe N, Kashiwagi K. et al. Advanced endoscopic submucosal dissection with traction. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 286-295
• 5 Mortagy M, Mehta N, Parsi MA. et al. Magnetic anchor guidance for endoscopic submucosal dissection and other endoscopic procedures. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 2883-2890
• 6 Kobayashi T, Gotohda T, Tamakawa K. et al. Magnetic anchor for more effective endoscopic mucosal resection. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34: 118-123
• 7 Gotoda T, Oda I, Tamakawa K. et al. Prospective clinical trial of magnetic-anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection for large early gastric cancer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 10-15
• 8 Aihara H, Ryou M, Kumar N. et al. A novel magnetic countertraction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection significantly reduces procedure time and minimizes technical difficulty. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 422-425
• 9 Zhou PH, Schumacher B, Yao LQ. et al. Conventional vs. waterjet-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 836-843
• 10 Fujishiro M, Sugita N. Animal feasibility study of an innovated splash-needle for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 7-12
• 11 Kawahara Y, Hori K, Takenaka R. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of esophageal cancer using the Mucosectom2 device: a feasibility study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 869-875
• 12 Yahagi N, Neuhaus H, Schumacher B. et al. Comparison of standard endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus an optimized ESD technique for the colon: an animal study. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 340-345
• 13 Spychalski M, Skulimowski A, Dziki A. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the West – when can satisfactory results be obtained? A single-operator learning curve analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 1442-1452
• 14 Iacopini F, Saito Y, Bella A. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E839-E846
• 15 Imaeda H, Hosoe N, Kashiwagi K. et al. Advanced endoscopic submucosal dissection with traction. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 286-295
• 16 Yamamoto S, Uedo N, Ishihara R. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer performed by supervised residents: assessment of feasibility and learning curve. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 923-928
• 17 Kobiela J, Grymek S, Wojanowska M. et al. Magnetic instrumentation and other applications of magnets in NOTES. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2012; 7: 67-73
• 18 Best SL, Bergs R, Gedeon M. et al. Maximizing coupling strength of magnetically anchored surgical instruments: how thick can we go?. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 153-159