The Efficacy of an Endoscopic Grasp-and-Traction Device for Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Ex Vivo Comparative Study (with Video)

• Published in: Clinical endoscopy 2015, 48(3), , pp.221-227
• Main Authors: Schölvinck, Dirk W, Goto, Osamu, Bergman, Jacques J G H M, Yahagi, Naohisa, Weusten, Bas L A M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Original; 내과학
• ISSN: 2234-2400; 2234-2443
• DOI: 10.5946/ce.2015.48.3.221

To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Two endoscopists (novice/expert in ESD) performed 64 ESDs (artificial 3-cm lesions) in 16 ex vivo pig stomachs: per stomach, two at the posterior wall (forward approach) and two at the lesser curvature (retroflex approach). Per approach, one lesion was dissected with (EL+) and one without (EL-) the EndoLifter. The submucosal dissection time (SDT), corrected for specimen size, and the influence of ESD experience on EndoLifter usefulness were assessed. En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm(2) vs. 0.91 min/cm(2)), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm(2) vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm(2), p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm(2) vs. 1.01 [EL-] min/cm(2), p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL-) min/cm(2) (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm(2) vs. 0.68 [EL-] min/cm(2), p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm(2) vs. 0.38 [EL-] min/cm(2), p=0.03). In gastric ESD, the EndoLifter, in trend, shortens SDTs in the forward, but not in the retroflex approach. Given the low numbers in this study, a type II error cannot be excluded.