Download PDF
Endoscopy 2010; 42(5): 400-404
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1243990
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Lesion isolation by circumferential submucosal incision prior to endoscopic mucosal resection (CSI-EMR) substantially improves en bloc resection rates for 40-mm colonic lesions

A.  Moss1 , M.  J.  Bourke1 , K.  Tran2 , C.  Godfrey3 , G.  McKay4 , A.  P.  Chandra4 , S.  Sharma2
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • 2Department of Anatomical Pathology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • 3Department of Animal Care, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • 4Department of Surgery, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 20 November 2009

accepted after revision 13 January 2010

Publication Date:
08 March 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de A. Moss et al., pp. 400Endoscopy 2010; 42(05): 433-434
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291855

Background and aims: En bloc resection is preferred for colonic laterally spreading tumors, but is limited to 20 mm with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) using normal saline submucosal injection. Our aims were to compare the efficacy and safety of circumferential submucosal incision prior to EMR (CSI-EMR) versus conventional EMR for en bloc resection of artificial lesions 40 × 40 mm in size using submucosal injection of succinylated gelatin in a porcine colon model.

Subjects and methods: Two areas of normal rectosigmoid mucosa measuring 40 × 40 mm were marked with soft coagulation for en bloc resection in each of 10 pigs. By alternate allocation, one was removed with conventional snare-based EMR following submucosal injection of succinylated gelatin. The other was circumferentially incised using an insulated-tip knife, followed by submucosal succinylated gelatin injection followed by EMR of the isolated area. All procedures were performed by a single endoscopist with significant experience of EMR but none of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Euthanasia and colectomy were performed on day 10. Specimens and ex vivo colon resection sites were examined by a specialist gastrointestinal histopathologist blinded to the technique used.

Results: En bloc excision rates were 70 % for CSI-EMR vs. 0 % for conventional EMR (p = 0.016). The median number of resections was 1 (interquartile range, IQR: 1 – 2) for CSI-EMR vs. 4 (3 – 6) for EMR (p < 0.001). Mean specimen dimensions were 50 × 43 mm for CSI-EMR vs. 37 × 32 mm for EMR (p = 0.001). Overall procedure duration (mean ± SD) was 30.3 ± 19.8 minutes for CSI-EMR vs. 12.4 ± 6.8 minutes (p = 0.003) for EMR. The mean duration of the final 5 CSI-EMRs was 17 minutes, with a statistically significant learning effect r = –0.7, p = 0.025. No perforations or bleeding occurred. All animals were euthanased on day 10. Histologically, CSI-EMR resulted in larger specimens and deeper submucosal resections.

Conclusions: CSI-EMR with submucosal injection of succinylated gelatin is safe and superior to conventional EMR, consistently resulting in en bloc resections larger than 50 × 40 mm. With experience, total procedure duration is comparable.

References

  • 1 Swan M P, Bourke M J, Alexander S. et al . Large refractory colonic polyps: is it time to change our practice? A prospective study of the clinical and economic impact of a tertiary referral colonic mucosal resection and polypectomy service (with videos).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 1128-1136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay J F. et al . EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 234-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bergmann U, Beger H G. Endoscopic mucosal resection for advanced non-polypoid colorectal adenoma and early stage carcinoma.  Surg Endosc. 2003;  17 475-479
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Seewald S, Soehendra N. Perforation: part and parcel of endoscopic resection?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 602-605
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Arebi N, Swain D, Suzuki N. et al . Endoscopic mucosal resection of 161 cases of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007;  42 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kaltenbach T, Friedland S, Maheshwari A. et al . Short- and long-term outcomes of standardized EMR of nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal lesions > or = 1 cm (with video).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  65 857-865
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rex D K. Have we defined best colonoscopic polypectomy practice in the United States?.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;  5 674-677
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Tanaka S, Haruma K, Oka S. et al . Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment of superficially spreading colorectal neoplasms larger than 20 mm.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I. et al . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 100-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N. et al . Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;  5 678-683; quiz 645
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Nakamura M. et al . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal epithelial neoplasia.  Endoscopy. 2006;  38 493-497
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N. et al . Successful endoscopic en bloc resection of a large laterally spreading tumor in the rectosigmoid junction by endoscopic submucosal dissection.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 178-183
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Chiu P W. Endoscopic submucosal dissection – bigger piece, better outcome!.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 884-885
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T. et al . Endoscopic treatment of large superficial colorectal tumors: a case series of 200 endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 966-973
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hotta K, Oyama T. Learning curve of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  69 AB280
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Moss A, Bourke M, Kwan V. et al . Succinylated gelatin substantially increases en bloc resection size in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): a randomized blinded trial in a porcine model.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;  in press
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Moss A, Bourke M, Williams S. et al . The Australian multicentre colonic endoscopic mucosal resection database (AMCEMRD) – predictors of submucosal invasive adenocarcinoma and outcomes for EMR of large laterally spreading tumours (LSTs).  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 (Suppl 1) A91
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Doniec J M, Lohnert M S, Schniewind B. et al . Endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps: prevention of unnecessary surgery?.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;  46 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bergman J J. How to justify endoscopic submucosal dissection in the Western world.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 988-990
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Yoshida N, Wakabayashi N, Kanemasa K. et al . Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: technical difficulties and rate of perforation.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 758-761
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Kantsevoy S V, Adler D G, Conway J D. et al . Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  68 11-18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Bourke M J. Current status of colonic endoscopic mucosal resection in the West and the interface with endoscopic submucosal dissection.  Digest Endosc. 2009;  21(Suppl 1) S27-S32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Matsuda T, Fujii T, Saito Y. et al . Efficacy of the invasive/non-invasive pattern by magnifying chromoendoscopy to estimate the depth of invasion of early colorectal neoplasms.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;  103 2700-2706
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kopelman D, Szold A, Kopelman Y. et al . Simulation of a colorectal polypoid lesion – a pilot porcine model.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;  67 1159-1167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 S3-S43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Repici A, Conio M, De Angelis C. et al . Insulated-tip knife endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps unsuitable for standard polypectomy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;  102 1617-1623
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Yamamoto H, Kawata H, Sunada K. et al . Success rate of curative endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential mucosal incision assisted by submucosal injection of sodium hyaluronate.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 507-512
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Min B H, Lee J H, Kim J J. et al . Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early gastric cancer: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential precutting (EMR-P).  Dig Liver Dis. 2009;  41 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sumiyama K, Kaise M, Nakayoshi T. et al . Combined use of a magnifying endoscope with a narrow band imaging system and a multibending endoscope for en bloc EMR of early stage gastric cancer.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T. et al . Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer.  Gut. 2001;  48 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Ohkuwa M, Hosokawa K, Boku N. et al . New endoscopic treatment for intramucosal gastric tumors using an insulated-tip diathermic knife.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 221-226
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Miyamoto S, Muto M, Hamamoto Y. et al . A new technique for endoscopic mucosal resection with an insulated-tip electrosurgical knife improves the completeness of resection of intramucosal gastric neoplasms.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 576-581
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Muto M, Miyamoto S, Hosokawa A. et al . Endoscopic mucosal resection in the stomach using the insulated-tip needle-knife.  Endoscopy. 2005;  37 178-182
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Choi I J, Kim C G, Chang H J. et al . The learning curve for EMR with circumferential mucosal incision in treating intramucosal gastric neoplasm.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 860-865
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Alexander S, Bourke M J, Williams S J. et al . EMR of large, sessile, sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas: technical aspects and long-term outcome (with videos).  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  69 66-73
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Hopper A D, Bourke M J, Williams S J, Swan M P. Giant laterally spreading tumours of the papilla: endoscopic features, resection technique and outcome.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;  in press
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

M. BourkeMBBS, FRACP 

Director of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Westmead Hospital

c/- Suite 106a
151-155 Hawkesbury Road
Westmead
NSW 2145
Australia

Fax: +61-2-96333958

Email: michael@citywestgastro.com.au