Comparisons of outcomes between ProKnife injection endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large gastric lesions in ex vivo porcine model study: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment outcomes between injection endoscopic submucosal dissection using ProKnife (P-ESD) and conventional ESD (C-ESD) for gastric lesions.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we compared treatment outcomes of P-ESD and C-ESD for simulated gastric lesions ≥3 cm in resected porcine stomachs. Predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties were investigated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy lesions were screened; however, two lesions were excluded. A total of 12 endoscopists performed 68 ESDs: 34 P-ESDs and 34 C-ESDs. The ESD procedure time of P-ESD (36.3 [28.4-46.8] min) was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (46 [36.4-64.6] min; = 0.0014). The technical success rates did not differ between the P-ESD and C-ESD groups (en bloc resection rate, 100% in both groups; complete resection rate, 94.1% and 85.3%, respectively; = 0.23). The number of injections during P-ESD (7.5 [6-10] times) was significantly higher than during C-ESD (4 [3-5] times; < 0.001), but the total volume of injected solution during P-ESD (20 [16-26.3] ml) was significantly smaller than during C-ESD (27.5 [20-31.5] ml; = 0.0019). In multivariate analysis, less ESD experience (odds ratio [OR], 3.9) and selection of C-ESD as the ESD method (OR, 3.8) were independent predictive factors associated with ESD difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with C-ESD, P-ESD had a shorter procedure time but also allowed for notable technical success and safety.