Experimental study of hybrid-knife endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus standard ESD in a Western country

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective but time-consuming treatment for early neoplasia that requires a high level of expertise. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and learning curve of gastric ESD with a hybrid knife with high pressure water jet and to compare with standard ESD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective non survival animal study comparing hybrid-knife and standard gastric ESD. Variables recorded were: Number of en-bloc ESD, number of ESD with all marks included (R0), size of specimens, time and speed of dissection and adverse events. Ten endoscopists performed a total of 50 gastric ESD (30 hybrid-knife and 20 standard). RESULTS: Forty-six (92 %) ESD were en-bloc and 25 (50 %) R0 (hybrid-knife: n = 13, 44 %; standard: n = 16, 80 %; p = 0.04). Hybrid-knife ESD was faster than standard (time: 44.6 +/- 21.4 minutes vs. 68.7 +/- 33.5 minutes; p = 0.009 and velocity: 20.8 +/- 9.2 mm(2)/min vs. 14.3 +/- 9.3 mm(2)/min (p = 0.079). Adverse events were not different. There was no change in speed with any of two techniques (hybrid-knife: From 20.33 +/- 15.68 to 28.18 +/- 20.07 mm(2)/min; p = 0.615 and standard: From 6.4 +/- 0.3 to 19.48 +/- 19.21 mm(2)/min; p = 0.607). The learning curve showed a significant improvement in R0 rate in the hybrid-knife group (from 30 % to 100 %). CONCLUSION: despite the initial performance of hybrid-knife ESD is worse than standard ESD, the learning curve with hybrid knife ESD is short and is associated with a rapid improvement. The introduction of new tools to facilitate ESD should be implemented with caution in order to avoid a negative impact on the results

Principales medidas de profilaxis en endoscopia bariátrica. Guía Española de Recomendación de Expertos

Bariatric endoscopy (BE) encompasses a number of techniques -some consolidated, some under development- aiming to contribute to the management of obese patients and their associated metabolic diseases as a complement to dietary and lifestyle changes. To date different intragastric balloon models, suture systems, aspiration methods, substance injections and both gastric and duodenal malabsorptive devices have been developed, as well as endoscopic procedures for the revision of bariatric surgery. Their ongoing evolution conditions a gradual increase in the quantity and quality of scientific evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Despite this, scientific evidence remains inadequate to establish strong grades of recommendation allowing a unified perspective on prophylaxis in BE. This dearth of data conditions leads, in daily practice, to frequently extrapolate the measures that are used in bariatric surgery (BS) and/or in general therapeutic endoscopy. In this respect, this special article is intended to reach a consensus on the most common prophylactic measures we should apply in BE. The methodological design of this document was developed while attempting to comply with the following 5 phases: Phase 1: delimitation and scope of objectives, according to the GRADE Clinical Guidelines. Phase 2: setup of the Clinical Guide-developing Group: national experts, members of the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO, SEED), SEPD, and SECO, selecting 2 authors for each section. Phase 3: clinical question form (PICO): patients, intervention, comparison, outcomes. Phase 4: literature assessment and synthesis. Search for evidence and elaboration of recommendations. Based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification, most evidence in this article will correspond to level 5 (expert opinions without explicit critical appraisal) and grade of recommendation C (favorable yet inconclusive recommendation) or D (inconclusive or inconsistent studies). Phase 5: External review by experts. We hope that these basic preventive measures will be of interest for daily practice, and may help prevent medical and/or legal conflicts for the benefit of patients, physicians, and BE in general

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) clinical guideline

The reason to write this guideline is to familiarize Spanish endoscopists and gastroenterologists not only with the general indications of the procedure and possible complications but also the dedicated tools

Experimental study of hybrid-knife endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus standard ESD in a Western country

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective but time-consuming treatment for early neoplasia that requires a high level of expertise. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and learning curve of gastric ESD with a hybrid knife with high-pressure water jet and to compare with standard ESD. Material and methods: We performed a prospective non-survival animal study comparing hybrid-knife and standard gastric ESD. Variables recorded were: Number of en-bloc ESD, number of ESD with all marks included (R0), size of specimens, time and speed of dissection and adverse events. Ten endoscopists performed a total of 50 gastric ESD (30 hybrid-knife and 20 standard). Results: Forty-six (92%) ESD were en-bloc and 25 (50%) R0 (hybrid-knife: n = 13, 44%; standard: n = 16, 80%; p = 0.04). Hybrid-knife ESD was faster than standard (time: 44.6 ± 21.4 minutes vs. 68.7 ± 33.5 minutes; p = 0.009 and velocity: 20.8 ± 9.2 mm²/min vs. 14.3 ± 9.3 mm²/min (p = 0.079). Adverse events were not different. There was no change in speed with any of two techniques (hybrid-knife: From 20.33 ± 15.68 to 28.18 ± 20.07 mm²/min; p = 0.615 and standard: From 6.4 ± 0.3 to 19.48 ± 19.21 mm²/min; p = 0.607). The learning curve showed a significant improvement in R0 rate in the hybrid-knife group (from 30% to 100%). Conclusion: despite the initial performance of hybrid-knife ESD is worse than standard ESD, the learning curve with hybrid-knife ESD is short and is associated with a rapid improvement. The introduction of new tools to facilitate ESD should be implemented with caution in order to avoid a negative impact on the results

Experimental study of hybrid-knife endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus standard ESD in a Western country

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective but time-consuming treatment for early neoplasia that requires a high level of expertise. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and learning curve of gastric ESD with a hybrid knife with high pressure water jet and to compare with standard ESD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective non survival animal study comparing hybrid-knife and standard gastric ESD. Variables recorded were: Number of en-bloc ESD, number of ESD with all marks included (R0), size of specimens, time and speed of dissection and adverse events. Ten endoscopists performed a total of 50 gastric ESD (30 hybrid-knife and 20 standard). RESULTS: Forty-six (92 %) ESD were en-bloc and 25 (50 %) R0 (hybrid-knife: n = 13, 44 %; standard: n = 16, 80 %; p = 0.04). Hybrid-knife ESD was faster than standard (time: 44.6 +/- 21.4 minutes vs. 68.7 +/- 33.5 minutes; p = 0.009 and velocity: 20.8 +/- 9.2 mm(2)/min vs. 14.3 +/- 9.3 mm(2)/min (p = 0.079). Adverse events were not different. There was no change in speed with any of two techniques (hybrid-knife: From 20.33 +/- 15.68 to 28.18 +/- 20.07 mm(2)/min; p = 0.615 and standard: From 6.4 +/- 0.3 to 19.48 +/- 19.21 mm(2)/min; p = 0.607). The learning curve showed a significant improvement in R0 rate in the hybrid-knife group (from 30 % to 100 %). CONCLUSION: despite the initial performance of hybrid-knife ESD is worse than standard ESD, the learning curve with hybrid knife ESD is short and is associated with a rapid improvement. The introduction of new tools to facilitate ESD should be implemented with caution in order to avoid a negative impact on the results