Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, 1-6 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0062, Japan.
Department of Medicine and Bioregulatory Science, Graduate School of Medicine Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
BMC Surg. 2020 Nov 19;20(1):287. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00955-w.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal neoplasms can be technically difficult for trainee endoscopists. Presently, there is no consensus for trainees to select the endo-knife type in ESD. Therefore, we conducted a comparison study of treatment outcomes between scissors-type and needle-type knives in ESD performed by trainees in an ex vivo porcine model.
This study was conducted on trainee endoscopists who participated in ESD hands-on seminars held in August 2018 and September 2019. A total of 22 trainees from 13 institutions were divided into two groups according to their endoscopic experience. Under expert supervision, each trainee performed two ESDs in porcine models, namely, scissor-type knife (ESD-S) and needle-type knife (ESD-N). The efficacy and safety, including the procedure time and rates of self-completion, en bloc resection, and complications, were compared between ESD-S and ESD-N. In subgroup analysis, we also investigated the predictors associated with the difficulty of ESD for trainees using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Eight trainees had an experience of over 1000 endoscopies (senior trainee: S-Trainee), whereas the others had an experience of less than 1000 endoscopies (junior trainee: J-Trainee). Among the S-Trainees, no significant differences were observed in any treatment outcome between ESD-S and ESD-N. Among the J-Trainees, the total procedure and mucosal incision times were significantly shorter in ESD-S than in ESD-N [total procedure time: 16.5 min (range 10.0-31.0) vs. 22.3 min (range 10.0-38.0), P = 0.018; circumferential incision time: 10.0 min (range 6-16) vs. 17.0 min (range 5.0-31.5); P = 0.019]. Regarding complications, muscular injury occurred in two patients during ESD-N performed by J-Trainees; however, no muscular injury occurred during ESD-S. In subgroup analysis, ESD-N was an independent predictive factor of difficult ESD (odds ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 1.25-22.30; P = 0.024).
This study revealed that trainees, particularly those who have experienced less than 1000 endoscopies, should opt for the scissor-type knife to perform ESD.
对于内镜受训者来说,胃肠道肿瘤的内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)技术难度较大。目前,对于受训者选择何种类型的内镜刀进行 ESD 还没有共识。因此,我们在猪模型的离体研究中比较了受训者使用剪刀型和针型刀进行 ESD 的治疗效果。
这项研究纳入了参加 2018 年 8 月和 2019 年 9 月 ESD 实践研讨会的内镜受训者。根据内镜经验,将 13 家机构的 22 名受训者分为两组。在专家监督下,每位受训者在猪模型中各完成 2 例 ESD,即剪刀型刀(ESD-S)和针型刀(ESD-N)。比较 ESD-S 和 ESD-N 的疗效和安全性,包括手术时间、自行完成率、整块切除率和并发症。在亚组分析中,我们还使用多变量逻辑回归分析调查了与受训者 ESD 难度相关的预测因素。
8 名受训者的内镜操作经验超过 1000 例(资深受训者:S-受训者),其余受训者的内镜操作经验少于 1000 例(初级受训者:J-受训者)。在 S-受训者中,ESD-S 和 ESD-N 之间的任何治疗结果均无显著差异。在 J-受训者中,ESD-S 的总手术时间和黏膜切开时间均显著短于 ESD-N [总手术时间:16.5 分钟(范围 10.0-31.0)比 22.3 分钟(范围 10.0-38.0),P=0.018;环周切开时间:10.0 分钟(范围 6-16)比 17.0 分钟(范围 5.0-31.5),P=0.019]。关于并发症,J-受训者行 ESD-N 时,有 2 例发生肌肉损伤;然而,行 ESD-S 时无肌肉损伤。在亚组分析中,ESD-N 是 ESD 难度较大的独立预测因素(比值比 5.28,95%置信区间 1.25-22.30;P=0.024)。
本研究表明,受训者,尤其是内镜操作经验少于 1000 例的受训者,应选择剪刀型刀进行 ESD。