Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

Effective Retrograde Dissection by the Floating Tongue-Like Flap Method for Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

Seong Min Kim1 , Jong-Jae Park1 , Moon Kyung Joo1 , Beom Jae Lee1 , Hoon Jai Chun2 , Sang Woo Lee3

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, 2Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, and 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Korea

Correspondence to: Jong-Jae Park
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-5405
E-mail gi7pjj@korea.ac.kr

Received: August 26, 2021; Revised: November 28, 2021; Accepted: December 7, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2022;16(6):892-898. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210399

Published online November 1, 2022, Published date November 15, 2022

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric neoplasm involving the pyloric channel (GNPC) is technically challenging due to difficulty in precise assessment of resection margin and inadequate visualization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcome of ESD for GNPC and introduce a noble technique for resection of GNPC.
Methods: A total of 97 patients with GNPC underwent ESD from January 2007 to October 2017. We divided them into a conventional anterograde resection group and a retrograde resection group according to the method of procedure. We compared their clinical outcomes and investigated risk factors for postprocedural complications.
Results: The en bloc resection rate was 87.6%, and complete resection rate was 83.5%. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in 16 cases (16.5%). GNPCs of the retrograde resection group were more frequently located from antrum to bulb, were significantly larger, were related to ≥75% resection of the circumference, and involved significantly longer procedure times than those in the anterograde resection group. Multivariate analysis showed that resection ≥75% of the circumference was the only significant risk factor for postprocedure stenosis.
Conclusions: ESD by retrograde resection method is a novel technique to make the procedure easier, depending on the size, location, and circumference of resection.

Keywords: Gastric neoplasms, Pylorus, Endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely accepted as a curative procedure for gastric neoplasm such as early gastric cancer (EGC), gastric adenoma, and gastric subepithelial tumor. With the development and widespread of the screening system in South Korea, the diagnosis of gastric adenoma and EGC has increased. The importance of ESD technique is also increasing. As ESD technique developed, there was no difference in the 5-year overall survival rate in treating gastric neoplasm between ESD and surgery. Thus, ESD is currently considered a standard treatment of EGC if cases are corresponding to absolute and expanded indications.1-4

However, it is technically difficult to perform successful ESD if one of the following reasons is present: (1) the lesion is located at the esophago-gastric junction, cardia, high-body, or pyloro-duodenum; (2) large tumor size; (3) ulceration or fibrotic scar coexists; and (4) demarcation line is not clear.5-10 Among them, ESD of gastric neoplasia involving the pyloric channel (GNPC) is technically challenging due to narrow lumen of channel and difficulty in precise assessment of the distal margin.7,11-13 However, few studies have shown the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of GNPC.

The method of ESD through retro-flexion of the endoscope for GNPC was first reported in 2002. Several authors later have reported clinical outcomes of ESD through retro-flexion in case series studies.6,7,12-15 The retrograde resection method has been studied and used a lot in endoscopic resection of rectal lesions. However, in terms of GNPC, the number of cases is relatively small and specific procedure methods are not demonstrated.16,17

In this study, we proposed a novel technique to treat GNPC more effectively and safely. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of the ESD through retro-flexion of the endoscope for GNPC and compared with the conventional anterograde resection method. We also investigated predictive factors for postprocedural stenosis during follow-up.

1. Patients

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of a total of 97 patients with GNPC who underwent ESD from January 2007 to October 2017 in a tertiary hospital. We obtained informed consent from all patients before the procedure who agreed to undergo endoscopic resection for the treatment of GNPC and the possibility of occurrence of postprocedural complications including pyloric stenosis. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Korea University Guro Hospital (IRB number: K2019-2354-001).

2. ESD procedure by retrograde method

All patients underwent ESD procedure under sedation with an intravenous administration of propofol (1.0 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.035 mg/kg) with close cardio-pulmonary function monitoring. We used conventional flexible endoscopy (GIF-Q260J; Olympus, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan) for performing ESD. All procedures were performed by an expert (J.J.P.) who had experience of performing more than 2,000 cases of gastric ESD.

Initially, we checked the margin of the lesion and marked it using needle coagulation. Injection of diluted epinephrine saline solution (dilution rate 1:10,000) that was mixed with indigo carmine dye was followed. Precutting and limited incision on both sides of the distal margin around the pyloric ring were done using a needle knife (KD-IL-1; Olympus), serving as a starting point for incision with retro-flexed endoscope and retrograde dissection from the bulb to antrum. The small incision pocket enhanced mucosal contraction and bulging of the dissecting flap during dissection within the bulb. Retrograde dissection using an insulated-tipped electrosurgical knife (KD-610L; Olympus) crossing the pyloric channel was done as far as possible in order to lift up the dissected bulbar portion of the lesion over the pyloric ring to make a “floating tongue-like” flap toward antrum. Then, dissecting with anterograde approach from antrum to pyloric channel was done for complete resection. The more distance is dissected by retrograde approach beyond pyloric channel, the more meeting point moves upwards towards the antrum, making it easier to finalize resection of the lesion with anterograde approach (Fig. 1). After removing the lesion, electro-coagulation or endo-clipping of visible vessel was done to prevent major bleeding.

Figure 1.Techniques of retrograde transpyloric antral dissection. (A) A flat lesion is found on the anterior wall of the prepylorus. (B) Precutting and limited incision on both sides of the distal margin around the pyloric ring are done, serving as a starting point for incision. (C) With a retro-flexed endoscope, retrograde dissection is done from the bulb to antrum. (D) Retrograde dissection crossing the pyloric ring is done as far as possible in order to lift up the dissected bulbar portion of the lesion over the pyloric ring to make a “floating tongue-like flap.” (E) Dissection is performed in an antegrade manner from antrum to pyloric channel, where the antegrade dissection (red arrow) and retrograde dissection (yellow arrow) points meet.

We did not perform routine preventive method for possible stenosis after ESD for GNPCs. However, if significant stenosis was found during follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy, rescue procedure such as endoscopic balloon dilatation was performed whenever necessary.

3. Definition

We defined GNPC as tumors with the distal margin located within a half centimeter from the pyloric ring when the ring was fully open. We defined en bloc resection when the tumor was completely resected as single piece and complete resection as the lesion was resected en bloc with negative vertical and lateral margin without lympho-vascular invasion on microscopic examination. Recurrence was defined as the new lesion confirmed by endoscopic biopsy after the procedure showed local recurrences, synchronous lesions, metachronous lesions, and distant metastatic lesions.18,19 We defined pyloric stenosis when the endoscope could not pass through the lumen of pyloric channel and patients complained symptoms associated with pyloric stenosis such as nausea and vomiting.

4. Post-ESD follow-up and recurrence assessment

After ESD, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed at intervals of 3 to 6 months for the first year and annually thereafter. Biopsy was performed on ESD scars to confirm local recurrence during endoscopic examination. Random biopsy on antrum and corpus or rapid urease test were performed during follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy for evaluation of Helicobacter pylori status. We regarded as current infection of was defined H. pylori if either biopsy with special stain or rapid urease test were positive.

5. Study designs

We subdivided cases based on the location of GNPC, the resection method, and the circumference of resection. First, we subdivided the resection method as anterograde and retrograde resection. In anterograde resection, we performed precut incision from distal margin with forward viewing and dissected the submucosa as standard manner. In contrast, in retrograde resection, we performed precut incision and submucosal dissection of distal part with retroflection of the scope in the bulb and subsequently finished the proximal part with forward viewing. Second, we subdivided the location of GNPC as confined to channel, antrum to channel, channel to bulb, and antrum to bulb through the channel. Third, we subdivided the circumference of resection as <25%, 25% to 75%, and ≥75%. We compared clinical outcomes of anterograde resection to retrograde resection and retrospectively analyzed risk factors with odds ratio for postprocedural stenosis.

6. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with significance level set at p<0.05. The Student t-test was used for continuous data and chi-square test for categorical data to compare clinical outcomes of procedures. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze risk factors and odds ratio for postprocedural stenosis.

1. Baseline Characteristics and procedure outcomes

The mean age of subjects was 63.1±9.6 years (60.8% male). A total of 77 cases (79.4%) were confined to channel with or without involvement of the antrum or bulb. Among them, 23 cases (23.7%) were confined to the channel, 49 cases (50.5%) were confined from the antrum to channel, and 5 cases (5.2%) were confined from the channel to bulb. The other 20 cases (20.6%) were located from the antrum to bulb through the channel. Forty cases (41.2%) showed H. pylori infection. On histopathologic evaluation, 42 cases (43.3%) were low grade dysplasia, 16 cases (16.5%) were high grade dysplasia, and 34 cases (35.1%) were EGC. Mean tumor size was 14.6±9.2 mm (Table 1).

Table 1. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

VariableData (n=97)
Age, mean±SD, yr63.1±9.6
Sex, No. (%)
Male59 (60.8)
Female38 (39.2)
Location, No. (%)
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb77 (79.4)
Confined to channel23 (23.7)
Antrum–channel49 (50.5)
Channel–bulb5 (5.2)
Antrum–bulb20 (20.6)
Helicobacter pylori infection, No. (%)40 (41.2)
Histopathology, No. (%)
Low grade dysplasia42 (43.3)
High grade dysplasia16 (16.5)
Early gastric cancer34 (35.1)
Miscellaneous5 (5.2)
Tumor size, mean±SD, mm14.6±9.2


All cases were resected with the ESD technique. Circumference of resection was <25% in 16 cases (16.5%), 25% to 75% in 39 cases (40.2%), and ≥75% in 42 cases (43.3%). Mean procedure time was 38.2±19.6 minutes. Only four cases (4.2%) showed major complications (perforation and major bleeding in two cases, respectively). En bloc resection rate and complete resection rate were 87.6% (85/97) and 83.5% (81/97), respectively. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in 16 cases (16.5%). During 37 months (median, 1 to 118 months) of follow-up period, there was one (1.0%) case of recurrence that was done by anterograde resection. Three cases (3.1%) required additional surgery (Table 2).

Table 2. Technical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

VariableNo. (%)
Procedure type
Endoscopic submucosal dissection97 (100)
Circumference of resection
<25%16 (16.5)
25% to <75%39 (40.2)
≥75%42 (43.3)
Procedure time, mean±SD, min38.2±19.6
Immediate complication
Perforation2 (2.1)
Major bleeding2 (2.1)
Loss of hemoglobin, mean±SD, g/dL0.5±0.7
En bloc resection85 (87.6)
Complete resection81 (83.5)
Postprocedural stenosis16 (16.5)
Recurrence rate1 (1.0)
Additional surgery3 (3.1)


2. Comparison of anterograde resection and retrograde resection

Anterograde resection was performed in 47 patients (48.5%), and retrograde resection was performed in 50 patients (51.5%). In the retrograde resection group, lesions were more frequently located from the antrum to bulb through the channel (3 [6.4%] vs 17 [34.0%], p=0.001) and tumor size was significantly larger (11.7±7.2 mm vs 17.4±10.0 mm, p=0.002). Circumference of resection ≥75% was significantly frequent in the retrograde resection group (14 [29.8%] vs 28 [56.0%], p<0.001). Procedure time was significantly longer in the retrograde group (30.8±17.0 minutes vs 45.1±19.4 minutes, p<0.001). Other variables including H. pylori infection rate, histopathology, complication rate, en bloc and complete resection rate, recurrence rate, and percentage of additional surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in five (10.6%) cases of the anterograde group and 11 (22.0%) cases of the retrograde group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.132). Among three patients who needed additional surgery, one case (2.1%) was in the antegrade resection group with recurrence of tumor and two cases (4.0%) were in the retrograde resection group (one was due to postprocedure stenosis and the other was due to involvement of deep resection margin by carcinoma) (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients in Anterograde Resection and Retrograde Resection Groups

VariableAnterograde resection (n=47)Retrograde resection (n=50)p-value
Age, yr62.7±9.163.5±10.20.694
Male sex27 (57.4)32 (64.0)0.509
Location0.001
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb44 (93.6)33 (66.0)
Antrum–bulb3 (6.4)17 (34.0)
Helicobacter pylori infection20 (42.6)20 (40.0)0.798
Histopathology0.471
Low grade dysplasia20 (42.6)22 (44.0)
High grade dysplasia7 (14.9)9 (18.0)
Early gastric cancer19 (40.4)15 (30.0)
Miscellaneous1 (2.1)4 (8.0)
Tumor size, mm11.7±7.217.4±10.00.002
Circumference of resection<0.001
<25%15 (31.9)1 (2.0)
25% to <75%18 (38.3)21 (42.0)
≥75%14 (29.8)28 (56.0)
Procedure time, min30.8±17.045.1±19.4<0.001
Immediate complication
Perforation1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.965
Major bleeding1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.976
Loss of hemoglobin, g/dL0.6±0.70.5±0.70.905
En bloc resection41 (87.2)44 (88.0)0.909
Complete resection39 (82.9)42 (84.0)0.892
Postprocedural stenosis5 (10.6)11 (22.0)0.132
Recurrence rate1 (2.1)00.300
Additional surgery1 (2.1)2 (4.0)0.228

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).



3. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for postprocedural stenosis

Multivariate analysis showed that circumference resection ≥75% was the only significant risk factor for postprocedure stenosis (odds ratio, 20.155; 95% confidence interval, 2.105 to 193.000; p=0.009). Location, histopathology, tumor size, procedure time, and piecemeal resection or incomplete resection were not significant risk factors (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Postprocedural Stenosis

VariableOdds ratio (95% CI)p-value
Location
Confined to channel,
antrum or bulb
Reference
Antrum–bulb2.703 (0.472–15.479)0.264
Histopathology
Low grade dysplasiaReference
High grade dysplasia8.029 (0.664–97.084)0.101
Early gastric cancer3.608 (0.377–34.526)0.265
Tumor size1.142 (0.973–1.341)0.103
Circumference of resection
<75%Reference
≥75%20.155 (2.105–193.000)0.009
Procedure time0.968 (0.920–1.018)0.204
Piecemeal resection0.318 (0.011–9.420)0.507
Incomplete resection2.433 (0.144–41.018)0.537

CI, confidence interval.


In this study, we tried to devise a more effective endoscopic method for performing endoscopic resection for EGC and gastric adenoma including pyloric channels and to find out which situations might be closely associated with postprocedural complications such as stenosis.

Conventional anterograde resection is an effective treatment for resection of lesions such as low to mid-body and proximal antrum. However, for GNPC, it is technically difficult to properly access the distal margin. As a result, the curative resection rate may decrease and postprocedural complications such as pyloric stenosis may occur.20-22 Thus, we assessed GNPC with retrograde resection, a method of accessing the distal margin through the retro-flexion of endoscope in the duodenal bulb, and compared clinical outcomes with those of conventional anterograde resection.

As mentioned in results, the retrograde resection group had larger lesion size with lesions located through the antrum to bulb and resected circumference over 75%. However, there were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, recurrence rate, or frequency of postprocedural complication rate. These results suggest that in GNPC, retrograde resection can be an effective method if the lesion has a larger size or if it is located through the antrum to bulb. This might be caused by the easy access to the distal margin through the retro-flexion of the endoscope.6,13,14 Meanwhile, procedure time was significantly longer in the retrograde resection group, which might be caused by the larger lesion size and difficult assess to the lesion when it is located through antrum and bulb.

Postprocedural stenosis, one of the most concerned postprocedural complications of GNPC, was likely to occur in the case of channel circumference of resection ≥75%. Previous Korean and Japanese studies demonstrated that circumference of resection over 75% were significant risk factors for postprocedural stenosis in ESD of GNPCs in common, which was consistent with our result.23-26 More frequent follow-ups should be considered and endoscopic balloon dilatation might be required if stenosis occurs.23,24

This study was meaningful in that it introduced an effective method of resection of GNPC and identified risk factors for predicting postprocedural stenosis, a major complication. However, this study had several limitations. First, in addition to postprocedural stenosis, this study did not identify risk factors for bleeding or perforation. Bleeding and perforation are severe complications that could occur after ESD. However, we had only two cases of perforation and bleeding, respectively, suggesting that ESD in GNPC might be a safe therapeutic modality. Second, this study was based on a retrospective, single-center study. Therefore, several variables such as range of the lesion, tumor size, circumference of resection and procedure time are not fairly matched. Thus, it is premature to generalize our results. Further studies including larger cases performed by a multicenter are needed in the future.

In conclusion, ESD is a feasible method for treating GNPC and retrograde resection method may be effective for larger tumor located throughout the antrum and bulb with circumference of resection ≥75%. For a successful ESD of GNPCs, a systematic therapeutic strategy and appropriate response to complications based on abundant clinical experiences would be necessary.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Study design and concept: S.M.K., J.J.P. Performance of endoscopic procedure: J.J.P. Data collection and statistical analysis: all authors. Writing of manuscript: S.M.K., J.J.P., M.K.J. Advice for study design and writing of manuscript: B.J.L., J.J.P., S.W.L., H.J.C. Reading of article and final approval: all authors.

  1. Kwon YH. Long-term clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in Korea. Gut Liver 2018;12:371-372.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Choi IJ, Lee JH, Kim YI, et al. Long-term outcome comparison of endoscopic resection and surgery in early gastric cancer meeting the absolute indication for endoscopic resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:333-341.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Chang JY, Shim KN, Tae CH, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: a single-institute study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7210.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Lee S, Choi KD, Han M, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery in early gastric cancer meeting expanded indication including undifferentiated-type tumors: a criteria-based analysis. Gastric Cancer 2018;21:490-499.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH, et al. Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1228-1235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jung SW, Jeong ID, Bang SJ, Shin JW, Park NH, Kim DH. Successful outcomes of endoscopic resection for gastric adenomas and early cancers located on the pyloric ring (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:625-629.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Lim CH, Park JM, Park CH, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasia involving the pyloric channel by retroflexion in the duodenum. Dig Dis Sci 2012;57:148-154.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Park CH, Kim EH, Kim HY, Roh YH, Lee YC. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early stage esophagogastric junction cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2015;47:37-44.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Kim JH, Nam HS, Choi CW, et al. Risk factors associated with difficult gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: predicting difficult ESD. Surg Endosc 2017;31:1617-1626.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Yano T, Hasuike N, Ono H, et al. Factors associated with technical difficulty of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer that met the expanded indication criteria: post hoc analysis of a multi-institutional prospective confirmatory trial (JCOG0607). Gastric Cancer 2020;23:168-174.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Bae JH, Kim GH, Lee BE, et al. Factors associated with the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in pyloric neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:303-311.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Gong EJ, Kim DH, Jung HY, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms in the pylorus. Surg Endosc 2015;29:3491-3498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Park JC, Kim JH, Youn YH, et al. How to manage pyloric tumours that are difficult to resect completely with endoscopic resection: comparison of the retroflexion vs. forward view technique. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:958-964.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Brandt LJ, Gotian A. Retroflexion in the duodenum for evaluation of duodenal bulb lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:438-440.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Onozato Y, Ishihara H, Iizuka H, et al. A large flat adenoma located on the pylorus ring successfully treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52:1738-1740.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Fujihara S, Kobara H, Mori H, et al. Comparison of retroflexed and forward views for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Int J Med Sci 2015;12:450-457.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Liu S, Li Y, Yang H, et al. Retroflexion-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection: a useful and safe method for removal of low rectal laterally spreading tumors. Surg Endosc 2016;30:139-146.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ono H, Yao K, Fujishiro M, et al. Guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer. Dig Endosc 2016;28:3-15.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015;47:829-854.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Ahn JY, Choi KD, Choi JY, et al. Procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the size and location of early gastric cancers: analysis of 916 dissections performed by 4 experts. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:911-916.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Takenaka R, Kawahara Y, Okada H, et al. Risk factors associated with local recurrence of early gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:887-894.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Imagawa A, Okada H, Kawahara Y, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: results and degrees of technical difficulty as well as success. Endoscopy 2006;38:987-990.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Iizuka H, Kakizaki S, Sohara N, et al. Stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers and adenomas. Dig Endosc 2010;22:282-288.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Coda S, Oda I, Gotoda T, Yokoi C, Kikuchi T, Ono H. Risk factors for cardiac and pyloric stenosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection, and efficacy of endoscopic balloon dilation treatment. Endoscopy 2009;41:421-426.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Hahn KY, Park JC, Lee HJ, et al. Antral or pyloric deformity is a risk factor for the development of postendoscopic submucosal dissection pyloric strictures. Gut Liver 2016;10:757-763.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Lee JU, Park MS, Yun SH, et al. Risk factors and management for pyloric stenosis occurred after endoscopic submucosal dissection adjacent to pylorus. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e5633.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2022; 16(6): 892-898

Published online November 15, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210399

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Effective Retrograde Dissection by the Floating Tongue-Like Flap Method for Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

Seong Min Kim1 , Jong-Jae Park1 , Moon Kyung Joo1 , Beom Jae Lee1 , Hoon Jai Chun2 , Sang Woo Lee3

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, 2Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, and 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Korea

Correspondence to:Jong-Jae Park
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-5405
E-mail gi7pjj@korea.ac.kr

Received: August 26, 2021; Revised: November 28, 2021; Accepted: December 7, 2021

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric neoplasm involving the pyloric channel (GNPC) is technically challenging due to difficulty in precise assessment of resection margin and inadequate visualization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcome of ESD for GNPC and introduce a noble technique for resection of GNPC.
Methods: A total of 97 patients with GNPC underwent ESD from January 2007 to October 2017. We divided them into a conventional anterograde resection group and a retrograde resection group according to the method of procedure. We compared their clinical outcomes and investigated risk factors for postprocedural complications.
Results: The en bloc resection rate was 87.6%, and complete resection rate was 83.5%. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in 16 cases (16.5%). GNPCs of the retrograde resection group were more frequently located from antrum to bulb, were significantly larger, were related to ≥75% resection of the circumference, and involved significantly longer procedure times than those in the anterograde resection group. Multivariate analysis showed that resection ≥75% of the circumference was the only significant risk factor for postprocedure stenosis.
Conclusions: ESD by retrograde resection method is a novel technique to make the procedure easier, depending on the size, location, and circumference of resection.

Keywords: Gastric neoplasms, Pylorus, Endoscopic submucosal dissection

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely accepted as a curative procedure for gastric neoplasm such as early gastric cancer (EGC), gastric adenoma, and gastric subepithelial tumor. With the development and widespread of the screening system in South Korea, the diagnosis of gastric adenoma and EGC has increased. The importance of ESD technique is also increasing. As ESD technique developed, there was no difference in the 5-year overall survival rate in treating gastric neoplasm between ESD and surgery. Thus, ESD is currently considered a standard treatment of EGC if cases are corresponding to absolute and expanded indications.1-4

However, it is technically difficult to perform successful ESD if one of the following reasons is present: (1) the lesion is located at the esophago-gastric junction, cardia, high-body, or pyloro-duodenum; (2) large tumor size; (3) ulceration or fibrotic scar coexists; and (4) demarcation line is not clear.5-10 Among them, ESD of gastric neoplasia involving the pyloric channel (GNPC) is technically challenging due to narrow lumen of channel and difficulty in precise assessment of the distal margin.7,11-13 However, few studies have shown the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of GNPC.

The method of ESD through retro-flexion of the endoscope for GNPC was first reported in 2002. Several authors later have reported clinical outcomes of ESD through retro-flexion in case series studies.6,7,12-15 The retrograde resection method has been studied and used a lot in endoscopic resection of rectal lesions. However, in terms of GNPC, the number of cases is relatively small and specific procedure methods are not demonstrated.16,17

In this study, we proposed a novel technique to treat GNPC more effectively and safely. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of the ESD through retro-flexion of the endoscope for GNPC and compared with the conventional anterograde resection method. We also investigated predictive factors for postprocedural stenosis during follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Patients

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of a total of 97 patients with GNPC who underwent ESD from January 2007 to October 2017 in a tertiary hospital. We obtained informed consent from all patients before the procedure who agreed to undergo endoscopic resection for the treatment of GNPC and the possibility of occurrence of postprocedural complications including pyloric stenosis. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Korea University Guro Hospital (IRB number: K2019-2354-001).

2. ESD procedure by retrograde method

All patients underwent ESD procedure under sedation with an intravenous administration of propofol (1.0 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.035 mg/kg) with close cardio-pulmonary function monitoring. We used conventional flexible endoscopy (GIF-Q260J; Olympus, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan) for performing ESD. All procedures were performed by an expert (J.J.P.) who had experience of performing more than 2,000 cases of gastric ESD.

Initially, we checked the margin of the lesion and marked it using needle coagulation. Injection of diluted epinephrine saline solution (dilution rate 1:10,000) that was mixed with indigo carmine dye was followed. Precutting and limited incision on both sides of the distal margin around the pyloric ring were done using a needle knife (KD-IL-1; Olympus), serving as a starting point for incision with retro-flexed endoscope and retrograde dissection from the bulb to antrum. The small incision pocket enhanced mucosal contraction and bulging of the dissecting flap during dissection within the bulb. Retrograde dissection using an insulated-tipped electrosurgical knife (KD-610L; Olympus) crossing the pyloric channel was done as far as possible in order to lift up the dissected bulbar portion of the lesion over the pyloric ring to make a “floating tongue-like” flap toward antrum. Then, dissecting with anterograde approach from antrum to pyloric channel was done for complete resection. The more distance is dissected by retrograde approach beyond pyloric channel, the more meeting point moves upwards towards the antrum, making it easier to finalize resection of the lesion with anterograde approach (Fig. 1). After removing the lesion, electro-coagulation or endo-clipping of visible vessel was done to prevent major bleeding.

Figure 1. Techniques of retrograde transpyloric antral dissection. (A) A flat lesion is found on the anterior wall of the prepylorus. (B) Precutting and limited incision on both sides of the distal margin around the pyloric ring are done, serving as a starting point for incision. (C) With a retro-flexed endoscope, retrograde dissection is done from the bulb to antrum. (D) Retrograde dissection crossing the pyloric ring is done as far as possible in order to lift up the dissected bulbar portion of the lesion over the pyloric ring to make a “floating tongue-like flap.” (E) Dissection is performed in an antegrade manner from antrum to pyloric channel, where the antegrade dissection (red arrow) and retrograde dissection (yellow arrow) points meet.

We did not perform routine preventive method for possible stenosis after ESD for GNPCs. However, if significant stenosis was found during follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy, rescue procedure such as endoscopic balloon dilatation was performed whenever necessary.

3. Definition

We defined GNPC as tumors with the distal margin located within a half centimeter from the pyloric ring when the ring was fully open. We defined en bloc resection when the tumor was completely resected as single piece and complete resection as the lesion was resected en bloc with negative vertical and lateral margin without lympho-vascular invasion on microscopic examination. Recurrence was defined as the new lesion confirmed by endoscopic biopsy after the procedure showed local recurrences, synchronous lesions, metachronous lesions, and distant metastatic lesions.18,19 We defined pyloric stenosis when the endoscope could not pass through the lumen of pyloric channel and patients complained symptoms associated with pyloric stenosis such as nausea and vomiting.

4. Post-ESD follow-up and recurrence assessment

After ESD, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed at intervals of 3 to 6 months for the first year and annually thereafter. Biopsy was performed on ESD scars to confirm local recurrence during endoscopic examination. Random biopsy on antrum and corpus or rapid urease test were performed during follow-up esophagogastroduodenoscopy for evaluation of Helicobacter pylori status. We regarded as current infection of was defined H. pylori if either biopsy with special stain or rapid urease test were positive.

5. Study designs

We subdivided cases based on the location of GNPC, the resection method, and the circumference of resection. First, we subdivided the resection method as anterograde and retrograde resection. In anterograde resection, we performed precut incision from distal margin with forward viewing and dissected the submucosa as standard manner. In contrast, in retrograde resection, we performed precut incision and submucosal dissection of distal part with retroflection of the scope in the bulb and subsequently finished the proximal part with forward viewing. Second, we subdivided the location of GNPC as confined to channel, antrum to channel, channel to bulb, and antrum to bulb through the channel. Third, we subdivided the circumference of resection as <25%, 25% to 75%, and ≥75%. We compared clinical outcomes of anterograde resection to retrograde resection and retrospectively analyzed risk factors with odds ratio for postprocedural stenosis.

6. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with significance level set at p<0.05. The Student t-test was used for continuous data and chi-square test for categorical data to compare clinical outcomes of procedures. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze risk factors and odds ratio for postprocedural stenosis.

RESULTS

1. Baseline Characteristics and procedure outcomes

The mean age of subjects was 63.1±9.6 years (60.8% male). A total of 77 cases (79.4%) were confined to channel with or without involvement of the antrum or bulb. Among them, 23 cases (23.7%) were confined to the channel, 49 cases (50.5%) were confined from the antrum to channel, and 5 cases (5.2%) were confined from the channel to bulb. The other 20 cases (20.6%) were located from the antrum to bulb through the channel. Forty cases (41.2%) showed H. pylori infection. On histopathologic evaluation, 42 cases (43.3%) were low grade dysplasia, 16 cases (16.5%) were high grade dysplasia, and 34 cases (35.1%) were EGC. Mean tumor size was 14.6±9.2 mm (Table 1).

Table 1 . Clinicopathological Characteristics of Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel.

VariableData (n=97)
Age, mean±SD, yr63.1±9.6
Sex, No. (%)
Male59 (60.8)
Female38 (39.2)
Location, No. (%)
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb77 (79.4)
Confined to channel23 (23.7)
Antrum–channel49 (50.5)
Channel–bulb5 (5.2)
Antrum–bulb20 (20.6)
Helicobacter pylori infection, No. (%)40 (41.2)
Histopathology, No. (%)
Low grade dysplasia42 (43.3)
High grade dysplasia16 (16.5)
Early gastric cancer34 (35.1)
Miscellaneous5 (5.2)
Tumor size, mean±SD, mm14.6±9.2


All cases were resected with the ESD technique. Circumference of resection was <25% in 16 cases (16.5%), 25% to 75% in 39 cases (40.2%), and ≥75% in 42 cases (43.3%). Mean procedure time was 38.2±19.6 minutes. Only four cases (4.2%) showed major complications (perforation and major bleeding in two cases, respectively). En bloc resection rate and complete resection rate were 87.6% (85/97) and 83.5% (81/97), respectively. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in 16 cases (16.5%). During 37 months (median, 1 to 118 months) of follow-up period, there was one (1.0%) case of recurrence that was done by anterograde resection. Three cases (3.1%) required additional surgery (Table 2).

Table 2 . Technical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel.

VariableNo. (%)
Procedure type
Endoscopic submucosal dissection97 (100)
Circumference of resection
<25%16 (16.5)
25% to <75%39 (40.2)
≥75%42 (43.3)
Procedure time, mean±SD, min38.2±19.6
Immediate complication
Perforation2 (2.1)
Major bleeding2 (2.1)
Loss of hemoglobin, mean±SD, g/dL0.5±0.7
En bloc resection85 (87.6)
Complete resection81 (83.5)
Postprocedural stenosis16 (16.5)
Recurrence rate1 (1.0)
Additional surgery3 (3.1)


2. Comparison of anterograde resection and retrograde resection

Anterograde resection was performed in 47 patients (48.5%), and retrograde resection was performed in 50 patients (51.5%). In the retrograde resection group, lesions were more frequently located from the antrum to bulb through the channel (3 [6.4%] vs 17 [34.0%], p=0.001) and tumor size was significantly larger (11.7±7.2 mm vs 17.4±10.0 mm, p=0.002). Circumference of resection ≥75% was significantly frequent in the retrograde resection group (14 [29.8%] vs 28 [56.0%], p<0.001). Procedure time was significantly longer in the retrograde group (30.8±17.0 minutes vs 45.1±19.4 minutes, p<0.001). Other variables including H. pylori infection rate, histopathology, complication rate, en bloc and complete resection rate, recurrence rate, and percentage of additional surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. Postprocedure stenosis occurred in five (10.6%) cases of the anterograde group and 11 (22.0%) cases of the retrograde group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.132). Among three patients who needed additional surgery, one case (2.1%) was in the antegrade resection group with recurrence of tumor and two cases (4.0%) were in the retrograde resection group (one was due to postprocedure stenosis and the other was due to involvement of deep resection margin by carcinoma) (Table 3).

Table 3 . Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients in Anterograde Resection and Retrograde Resection Groups.

VariableAnterograde resection (n=47)Retrograde resection (n=50)p-value
Age, yr62.7±9.163.5±10.20.694
Male sex27 (57.4)32 (64.0)0.509
Location0.001
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb44 (93.6)33 (66.0)
Antrum–bulb3 (6.4)17 (34.0)
Helicobacter pylori infection20 (42.6)20 (40.0)0.798
Histopathology0.471
Low grade dysplasia20 (42.6)22 (44.0)
High grade dysplasia7 (14.9)9 (18.0)
Early gastric cancer19 (40.4)15 (30.0)
Miscellaneous1 (2.1)4 (8.0)
Tumor size, mm11.7±7.217.4±10.00.002
Circumference of resection<0.001
<25%15 (31.9)1 (2.0)
25% to <75%18 (38.3)21 (42.0)
≥75%14 (29.8)28 (56.0)
Procedure time, min30.8±17.045.1±19.4<0.001
Immediate complication
Perforation1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.965
Major bleeding1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.976
Loss of hemoglobin, g/dL0.6±0.70.5±0.70.905
En bloc resection41 (87.2)44 (88.0)0.909
Complete resection39 (82.9)42 (84.0)0.892
Postprocedural stenosis5 (10.6)11 (22.0)0.132
Recurrence rate1 (2.1)00.300
Additional surgery1 (2.1)2 (4.0)0.228

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%)..



3. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for postprocedural stenosis

Multivariate analysis showed that circumference resection ≥75% was the only significant risk factor for postprocedure stenosis (odds ratio, 20.155; 95% confidence interval, 2.105 to 193.000; p=0.009). Location, histopathology, tumor size, procedure time, and piecemeal resection or incomplete resection were not significant risk factors (Table 4).

Table 4 . Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Postprocedural Stenosis.

VariableOdds ratio (95% CI)p-value
Location
Confined to channel,
antrum or bulb
Reference
Antrum–bulb2.703 (0.472–15.479)0.264
Histopathology
Low grade dysplasiaReference
High grade dysplasia8.029 (0.664–97.084)0.101
Early gastric cancer3.608 (0.377–34.526)0.265
Tumor size1.142 (0.973–1.341)0.103
Circumference of resection
<75%Reference
≥75%20.155 (2.105–193.000)0.009
Procedure time0.968 (0.920–1.018)0.204
Piecemeal resection0.318 (0.011–9.420)0.507
Incomplete resection2.433 (0.144–41.018)0.537

CI, confidence interval..


DISCUSSION

In this study, we tried to devise a more effective endoscopic method for performing endoscopic resection for EGC and gastric adenoma including pyloric channels and to find out which situations might be closely associated with postprocedural complications such as stenosis.

Conventional anterograde resection is an effective treatment for resection of lesions such as low to mid-body and proximal antrum. However, for GNPC, it is technically difficult to properly access the distal margin. As a result, the curative resection rate may decrease and postprocedural complications such as pyloric stenosis may occur.20-22 Thus, we assessed GNPC with retrograde resection, a method of accessing the distal margin through the retro-flexion of endoscope in the duodenal bulb, and compared clinical outcomes with those of conventional anterograde resection.

As mentioned in results, the retrograde resection group had larger lesion size with lesions located through the antrum to bulb and resected circumference over 75%. However, there were no significant differences in en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, recurrence rate, or frequency of postprocedural complication rate. These results suggest that in GNPC, retrograde resection can be an effective method if the lesion has a larger size or if it is located through the antrum to bulb. This might be caused by the easy access to the distal margin through the retro-flexion of the endoscope.6,13,14 Meanwhile, procedure time was significantly longer in the retrograde resection group, which might be caused by the larger lesion size and difficult assess to the lesion when it is located through antrum and bulb.

Postprocedural stenosis, one of the most concerned postprocedural complications of GNPC, was likely to occur in the case of channel circumference of resection ≥75%. Previous Korean and Japanese studies demonstrated that circumference of resection over 75% were significant risk factors for postprocedural stenosis in ESD of GNPCs in common, which was consistent with our result.23-26 More frequent follow-ups should be considered and endoscopic balloon dilatation might be required if stenosis occurs.23,24

This study was meaningful in that it introduced an effective method of resection of GNPC and identified risk factors for predicting postprocedural stenosis, a major complication. However, this study had several limitations. First, in addition to postprocedural stenosis, this study did not identify risk factors for bleeding or perforation. Bleeding and perforation are severe complications that could occur after ESD. However, we had only two cases of perforation and bleeding, respectively, suggesting that ESD in GNPC might be a safe therapeutic modality. Second, this study was based on a retrospective, single-center study. Therefore, several variables such as range of the lesion, tumor size, circumference of resection and procedure time are not fairly matched. Thus, it is premature to generalize our results. Further studies including larger cases performed by a multicenter are needed in the future.

In conclusion, ESD is a feasible method for treating GNPC and retrograde resection method may be effective for larger tumor located throughout the antrum and bulb with circumference of resection ≥75%. For a successful ESD of GNPCs, a systematic therapeutic strategy and appropriate response to complications based on abundant clinical experiences would be necessary.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study design and concept: S.M.K., J.J.P. Performance of endoscopic procedure: J.J.P. Data collection and statistical analysis: all authors. Writing of manuscript: S.M.K., J.J.P., M.K.J. Advice for study design and writing of manuscript: B.J.L., J.J.P., S.W.L., H.J.C. Reading of article and final approval: all authors.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Techniques of retrograde transpyloric antral dissection. (A) A flat lesion is found on the anterior wall of the prepylorus. (B) Precutting and limited incision on both sides of the distal margin around the pyloric ring are done, serving as a starting point for incision. (C) With a retro-flexed endoscope, retrograde dissection is done from the bulb to antrum. (D) Retrograde dissection crossing the pyloric ring is done as far as possible in order to lift up the dissected bulbar portion of the lesion over the pyloric ring to make a “floating tongue-like flap.” (E) Dissection is performed in an antegrade manner from antrum to pyloric channel, where the antegrade dissection (red arrow) and retrograde dissection (yellow arrow) points meet.
Gut and Liver 2022; 16: 892-898https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210399

Table 1 Clinicopathological Characteristics of Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

VariableData (n=97)
Age, mean±SD, yr63.1±9.6
Sex, No. (%)
Male59 (60.8)
Female38 (39.2)
Location, No. (%)
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb77 (79.4)
Confined to channel23 (23.7)
Antrum–channel49 (50.5)
Channel–bulb5 (5.2)
Antrum–bulb20 (20.6)
Helicobacter pylori infection, No. (%)40 (41.2)
Histopathology, No. (%)
Low grade dysplasia42 (43.3)
High grade dysplasia16 (16.5)
Early gastric cancer34 (35.1)
Miscellaneous5 (5.2)
Tumor size, mean±SD, mm14.6±9.2

Table 2 Technical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Gastric Neoplasm Involving the Pyloric Channel

VariableNo. (%)
Procedure type
Endoscopic submucosal dissection97 (100)
Circumference of resection
<25%16 (16.5)
25% to <75%39 (40.2)
≥75%42 (43.3)
Procedure time, mean±SD, min38.2±19.6
Immediate complication
Perforation2 (2.1)
Major bleeding2 (2.1)
Loss of hemoglobin, mean±SD, g/dL0.5±0.7
En bloc resection85 (87.6)
Complete resection81 (83.5)
Postprocedural stenosis16 (16.5)
Recurrence rate1 (1.0)
Additional surgery3 (3.1)

Table 3 Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients in Anterograde Resection and Retrograde Resection Groups

VariableAnterograde resection (n=47)Retrograde resection (n=50)p-value
Age, yr62.7±9.163.5±10.20.694
Male sex27 (57.4)32 (64.0)0.509
Location0.001
Confined to channel, antrum or bulb44 (93.6)33 (66.0)
Antrum–bulb3 (6.4)17 (34.0)
Helicobacter pylori infection20 (42.6)20 (40.0)0.798
Histopathology0.471
Low grade dysplasia20 (42.6)22 (44.0)
High grade dysplasia7 (14.9)9 (18.0)
Early gastric cancer19 (40.4)15 (30.0)
Miscellaneous1 (2.1)4 (8.0)
Tumor size, mm11.7±7.217.4±10.00.002
Circumference of resection<0.001
<25%15 (31.9)1 (2.0)
25% to <75%18 (38.3)21 (42.0)
≥75%14 (29.8)28 (56.0)
Procedure time, min30.8±17.045.1±19.4<0.001
Immediate complication
Perforation1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.965
Major bleeding1 (2.1)1 (2.0)0.976
Loss of hemoglobin, g/dL0.6±0.70.5±0.70.905
En bloc resection41 (87.2)44 (88.0)0.909
Complete resection39 (82.9)42 (84.0)0.892
Postprocedural stenosis5 (10.6)11 (22.0)0.132
Recurrence rate1 (2.1)00.300
Additional surgery1 (2.1)2 (4.0)0.228

Data are presented as mean±SD or number (%).


Table 4 Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Postprocedural Stenosis

VariableOdds ratio (95% CI)p-value
Location
Confined to channel,
antrum or bulb
Reference
Antrum–bulb2.703 (0.472–15.479)0.264
Histopathology
Low grade dysplasiaReference
High grade dysplasia8.029 (0.664–97.084)0.101
Early gastric cancer3.608 (0.377–34.526)0.265
Tumor size1.142 (0.973–1.341)0.103
Circumference of resection
<75%Reference
≥75%20.155 (2.105–193.000)0.009
Procedure time0.968 (0.920–1.018)0.204
Piecemeal resection0.318 (0.011–9.420)0.507
Incomplete resection2.433 (0.144–41.018)0.537

CI, confidence interval.


References

  1. Kwon YH. Long-term clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in Korea. Gut Liver 2018;12:371-372.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Choi IJ, Lee JH, Kim YI, et al. Long-term outcome comparison of endoscopic resection and surgery in early gastric cancer meeting the absolute indication for endoscopic resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:333-341.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Chang JY, Shim KN, Tae CH, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: a single-institute study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e7210.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Lee S, Choi KD, Han M, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery in early gastric cancer meeting expanded indication including undifferentiated-type tumors: a criteria-based analysis. Gastric Cancer 2018;21:490-499.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH, et al. Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1228-1235.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Jung SW, Jeong ID, Bang SJ, Shin JW, Park NH, Kim DH. Successful outcomes of endoscopic resection for gastric adenomas and early cancers located on the pyloric ring (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:625-629.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Lim CH, Park JM, Park CH, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric neoplasia involving the pyloric channel by retroflexion in the duodenum. Dig Dis Sci 2012;57:148-154.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Park CH, Kim EH, Kim HY, Roh YH, Lee YC. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early stage esophagogastric junction cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2015;47:37-44.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Kim JH, Nam HS, Choi CW, et al. Risk factors associated with difficult gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: predicting difficult ESD. Surg Endosc 2017;31:1617-1626.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Yano T, Hasuike N, Ono H, et al. Factors associated with technical difficulty of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer that met the expanded indication criteria: post hoc analysis of a multi-institutional prospective confirmatory trial (JCOG0607). Gastric Cancer 2020;23:168-174.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Bae JH, Kim GH, Lee BE, et al. Factors associated with the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in pyloric neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:303-311.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Gong EJ, Kim DH, Jung HY, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms in the pylorus. Surg Endosc 2015;29:3491-3498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Park JC, Kim JH, Youn YH, et al. How to manage pyloric tumours that are difficult to resect completely with endoscopic resection: comparison of the retroflexion vs. forward view technique. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:958-964.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Brandt LJ, Gotian A. Retroflexion in the duodenum for evaluation of duodenal bulb lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:438-440.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Onozato Y, Ishihara H, Iizuka H, et al. A large flat adenoma located on the pylorus ring successfully treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52:1738-1740.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Fujihara S, Kobara H, Mori H, et al. Comparison of retroflexed and forward views for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Int J Med Sci 2015;12:450-457.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Liu S, Li Y, Yang H, et al. Retroflexion-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection: a useful and safe method for removal of low rectal laterally spreading tumors. Surg Endosc 2016;30:139-146.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ono H, Yao K, Fujishiro M, et al. Guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer. Dig Endosc 2016;28:3-15.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015;47:829-854.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Ahn JY, Choi KD, Choi JY, et al. Procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the size and location of early gastric cancers: analysis of 916 dissections performed by 4 experts. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:911-916.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. Takenaka R, Kawahara Y, Okada H, et al. Risk factors associated with local recurrence of early gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:887-894.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Imagawa A, Okada H, Kawahara Y, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: results and degrees of technical difficulty as well as success. Endoscopy 2006;38:987-990.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Iizuka H, Kakizaki S, Sohara N, et al. Stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancers and adenomas. Dig Endosc 2010;22:282-288.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Coda S, Oda I, Gotoda T, Yokoi C, Kikuchi T, Ono H. Risk factors for cardiac and pyloric stenosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection, and efficacy of endoscopic balloon dilation treatment. Endoscopy 2009;41:421-426.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Hahn KY, Park JC, Lee HJ, et al. Antral or pyloric deformity is a risk factor for the development of postendoscopic submucosal dissection pyloric strictures. Gut Liver 2016;10:757-763.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  26. Lee JU, Park MS, Yun SH, et al. Risk factors and management for pyloric stenosis occurred after endoscopic submucosal dissection adjacent to pylorus. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e5633.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.16 No.6
November, 2022

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office