Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2459-0064
Optimization of traction-device length and traction force during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection
Various traction methods, including intraluminal traction for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have proven useful [1] [2]. Due to the stomach’s complex shape, devices providing only longitudinal traction externally are less effective [3]. The multi-loop traction device (MLTD; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts, United States), which enables traction-assisted ESD by anchoring the loop to the lumen of the other side with an endoscopic clip, allows for easy adjustment of traction direction and removal, demonstrating its effectiveness [4]. However, in the wide lumen of the stomach, a single short MLTD would result in excessive traction force and muscle-layer traction. Therefore, we report a safer gastric ESD technique using two connected MLTDs to optimize traction force and prevent excessive muscle-layer traction.
In Case 1, a single MLTD (triple loop) ([Fig. 1] a) was used. The lesion (19×16 mm, 0–IIc) was in the lesser curvature of the middle stomach ([Fig. 2]). ESD was performed using a DualKnife J (KD-655L; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan; [Video 1]), and an MLTD was applied after a circumferential incision. Although traction improved submucosal visibility, the muscle layer was also tractioned, making the procedure difficult ([Fig. 3]).
Quality:
In Case 2, two MLTDs connected by a cow-hitch knot were used (six loops) ([Fig. 1] b). The lesion (10×6 mm, 0–IIa) was on the posterior wall of the midbody ([Fig. 4]). After making a full circumferential incision, traction with two MLTDs provided clear submucosal visibility without excessive muscle-layer traction ([Fig. 5]). ESD was safely completed using devices of appropriate length for the wide lumen. Distant anchoring can pull the muscle layer even with two MLTDs; therefore, the best site is slightly mouthward on the contralateral side.
For traction-assisted ESD of the stomach, which has an extensive and complex geometry, our findings suggest that setting the appropriate traction-device length and traction force is necessary for improving safety.
Publication History
Received: 29 July 2024
Accepted after revision: 24 October 2024
Article published online:
18 November 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Giacobo Nunes F, Gomes ILC, De Moura DTH. et al. Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cureus 2024; 16: e55645
- 2 Nagata M, Fujikawa T, Munakata H. Comparing a conventional and a spring-and-loop with clip traction method of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastric neoplasms: a randomized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1097-1109
- 3 Nagata M. Optimal traction direction in traction-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 14: 667-671 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i11.667. (PMID: 36438880)
- 4 Matsui H, Tamai N, Futakuchi T. et al. Multi-loop traction device facilitates gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo pilot study and an inaugural clinical experience. BMC Gastroenterol 2022; 22: 10 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-02085-w. (PMID: 34991489)