The efficacy of an endoscopic grasp-and-traction device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: An ex vivo comparative study (with video)

Dirk W. Schölvinck, Osamu Goto, Jacques J G H M Bergman, Naohisa Yahagi, Bas L A M Weusten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background/Aims: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: 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. Results: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm<sup>2</sup>), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm<sup>2</sup> vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm<sup>2</sup> vs. 1.01 [EL–] min/cm<sup>2</sup>, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL–) min/cm<sup>2</sup> (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm<sup>2</sup> vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm<sup>2</sup>, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm<sup>2</sup> vs. 0.38 [EL–] min/cm<sup>2</sup>, p=0.03). Conclusions: 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)221-227
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Endoscopy
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 May 1

Fingerprint

Traction
Hand Strength
Stomach
Equipment and Supplies
Dissection
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Swine

Keywords

  • EndoLifter
  • Endoscopic submucosal dissection
  • Gastric mucosa
  • Stomach neoplasms
  • Swine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

The efficacy of an endoscopic grasp-and-traction device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection : An ex vivo comparative study (with video). / Schölvinck, Dirk W.; Goto, Osamu; Bergman, Jacques J G H M; Yahagi, Naohisa; Weusten, Bas L A M.

In: Clinical Endoscopy, Vol. 48, No. 3, 01.05.2015, p. 221-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schölvinck, Dirk W. ; Goto, Osamu ; Bergman, Jacques J G H M ; Yahagi, Naohisa ; Weusten, Bas L A M. / The efficacy of an endoscopic grasp-and-traction device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection : An ex vivo comparative study (with video). In: Clinical Endoscopy. 2015 ; Vol. 48, No. 3. pp. 221-227.
@article{437adf245c9a40089c2370380f0b7bfd,
title = "The efficacy of an endoscopic grasp-and-traction device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: An ex vivo comparative study (with video)",
abstract = "Background/Aims: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: 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. Results: En bloc resection rate was 98.4{\%}. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL–) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.03). Conclusions: 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.",
keywords = "EndoLifter, Endoscopic submucosal dissection, Gastric mucosa, Stomach neoplasms, Swine",
author = "Sch{\"o}lvinck, {Dirk W.} and Osamu Goto and Bergman, {Jacques J G H M} and Naohisa Yahagi and Weusten, {Bas L A M}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5946/ce.2015.48.3.221",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "221--227",
journal = "Clinical Endoscopy",
issn = "2234-2400",
publisher = "Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The efficacy of an endoscopic grasp-and-traction device for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

T2 - An ex vivo comparative study (with video)

AU - Schölvinck, Dirk W.

AU - Goto, Osamu

AU - Bergman, Jacques J G H M

AU - Yahagi, Naohisa

AU - Weusten, Bas L A M

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - Background/Aims: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: 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. Results: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL–) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.03). Conclusions: 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.

AB - Background/Aims: To investigate whether the EndoLifter (Olympus), a counter-traction device facilitating submucosal dissection, can accelerate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: 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. Results: En bloc resection rate was 98.4%. In the forward approach, the median SDT was shorter with the EndoLifter (0.56 min/cm2 vs. 0.91 min/cm2), although not significantly (p=0.09). The ESD-experienced endoscopist benefitted more from the EndoLifter (0.45 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.07) than the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist (0.77 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 1.01 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.48). In the retroflex approach, the median SDTs were 1.06 (EL+) and 0.48 (EL–) min/cm2 (p=0.16). The EndoLifter did not shorten the SDT for the ESD-experienced endoscopist (0.68 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.68 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.78), whereas the ESD-inexperienced endoscopist seemed hindered (1.65 [EL+] min/cm2 vs. 0.38 [EL–] min/cm2, p=0.03). Conclusions: 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.

KW - EndoLifter

KW - Endoscopic submucosal dissection

KW - Gastric mucosa

KW - Stomach neoplasms

KW - Swine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930067234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930067234&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5946/ce.2015.48.3.221

DO - 10.5946/ce.2015.48.3.221

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84930067234

VL - 48

SP - 221

EP - 227

JO - Clinical Endoscopy

JF - Clinical Endoscopy

SN - 2234-2400

IS - 3

ER -