COMPARISON OF TUNNEL AND CLASSICAL METHODS OF ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION IN EPITHELIAL COLON TUMORS (systematic review and meta-analysis)

BACKGROUND: endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a modern effective method for patients with benign epithelial tumors and early colorectal cancer.
The use of such a technique for ESD as a submucosal tunnel (‘pocket’) – creation under a tumor creates conditions for improving the surgical specimen qualityand reducingfragmentationrate.
Aim: to study the effectiveness and safety of the tunnel method of ESD (TESD) in comparison with classical ESD (CESD) in colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: literature search and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations using the PUBMED search system in the Medline electronic database without limiting publication datesin the English language literature. The systematic review included all the studies on comparison of the tunnel and classical ESD methods.
RESULTS: the analysis included 4 studies (1,422 patients, 458 in the TESD group and 961 in the CESD group). The groups were comparable in the number of adenomas (OR=1.25; 95% CI=0.87-1.79; p=0.22), adenocarcinomas (OR=0.96; 95% CI=0.49-1.87; p=0.90), in the size of neoplasms (95% CI=-6.26-1.22; p=0.19), and in the presence of submucosal fibrosis (p=0.69). There were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding rate (OR=1.24; 95% CI=0.53-2.88; p=0.61); however, perforations occurred more often when using CESD (OR= 0.35; 95% CI=0.15-0.83; p=0.02). The CESD took significantly longer time than the TESD (OR=-19.1; 95% CI=33.89-4.45; p=0.01). The frequency of en bloc resections (OR=16.06; 95% CI=4.95-52.11; p<0.0001) and R0-resections (OR=3.28; 95% CI=1.30-8.32; p=0.01) were significantly higher in the TESD. CONCLUSION: the tunnel method of endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective and safe alternative to the classical method. However, there is currently a lack of data for the choice of submucosal dissection method for large colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer, which requires further comparative studies.

1. Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24:343-352. DOI: 10.1007/s00464009-0562-8.

2. Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y, et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009; 24: 225-230. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-008-0596-8.

3. Yamamoto H, Yahagi N, Oyama T. Mucosectomy in the Colon with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. Endoscopy. 2005; 37 (8):764-768. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-100218.

4. Chernyshov S.V., Tarasov M.A., Nagudov M.A., Mtvralashvili D.A., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal adenomas and early rectal cancer. Koloproktologia. 2019; v. 18, no. 2(68), pp. 7-20. https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2019-182-7-14. (In Russ.).

5. Shelygin Yu.A., Chernyshov S.V., Mainovskaya O.A., et al. Early Rectal Cancer: Can Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) Become the Standard Treatment? Annals of the Russian academy of medical sciences. 2016; v. 71, no. 4, pp. 323-331. doi: 10.15690/vramn7196. (In Russ.).

6. Makino T, Kanamura S, et al. Preoperative classification of submucosal fibrosis in colorectal laterally spreading tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography. Endosc Int Open. 2015 Aug;3(4): 363-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391782.

7. Yoshida Naohisa et al. The efficiacy of the pocket-creation method for cases with severe fibrosis in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy International Open. 2018; 06:975-983. DOI: 10.1055/a-0593-5818.

8. Yang JL et al. Endoscopic Submucosal Tunnel Dissection: A Feasible Solution for Large Superficial Rectal Neoplastic Lesions. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Aug;60(8): 866-871. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000805.

9. Sakamoto H, et al. Pocket-creation method facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors, non-granular type. Endosc Int Open. 2017 Feb; 5(2):123-129. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-122778.

10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanations and elaboration. BMJ [Internet]. 2009 Jul 21;339:2700. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.

11. Mtvralashvili D.A., Likutov A.A., Veselov V.V., Maynovskaya O.A., et al. Does lesion site affects outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colon neoplasia? Koloproktologia. 2019; v. 18, no. 2(68), pp. 33-48. https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-201918-2-33-41. (In Russ.).

12. Agapov M.Yu., Ryzhkov E.F., Dvoynikova E.R. Preliminary results of endoscopic dissection in the submucosal layer during the formation of the stomach and colon. Experimental and clinical gastroenterology. 2014; no. 104(4), pp. 48-51. (In Russ.).

13. Miura Y. et al. Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection is feasible using the pocket-creation method. Endoscopy. 2017 Jan; 49 (1); 8-14. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-116315.

14. Tang Yuyong et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection using a pocket creation method modified technique of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection. Endoscopy. 2017; 49:400. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-124362.

15. Kanamori A, et al. Clinical effectiveness of the pocketcreation method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc Int Open. 2017 Dec;5(12):E1299-E1305. DOI: 10.1055/s0043-118744.

16. Aslan F, et al. Single tunneling method with endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of a rectal giant (18-cm) laterally spreading tumor. Endoscopy. 2017 Feb; 49(S 01): 114-116. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-100218.

17. Takezawa T, Hayashi Y, Shinozaki S et al. The pocket-creation method facilitates colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May; 89(5):1045-1053. Doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.022.