Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An internal magnet traction device reduces procedure time for endoscopic submucosal dissection by expert and non-expert endoscopists: ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model (with video)

  • Dynamic Manuscript
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Efficacy of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by an expert endoscopist has been reported. We hypothesized that use of the MTD would enhance the performance of colorectal ESD in a non-expert endoscopist in ESD compared to the conventional technique. Primary aim of this study was to compare procedure times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD) by expert and non-expert endoscopists in ESD. Secondary aims included rate of en bloc resection, iatrogenic injury, visualization score of the submucosal layer, and endoscopist satisfaction score.

Methods

A total of 56 lesions were created in an ex vivo porcine colorectum. Two endoscopists completed C-ESD (n = 28) and MTD-ESD (n = 28). Lesions measured 3 cm in diameter and were located on either the anterior or posterior colorectal wall. The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and nylon monofilament attached to a through-the-scope clip. The first MTD was deployed on the opposing colorectal wall of the target lesion and a second MTD was then deployed directly onto the distal margin of the lesion.

Results

Total procedure time for MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD for both expert (median: 15.8 vs. 19.3 min, p < 0.05) and non-expert (median: 21.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001) endoscopists. All lesions were resected en bloc. There was no iatrogenic muscularis propria injury in the MTD-ESD group. For both the expert and non-expert, scores for MTD-ESD were significantly higher for submucosal layer visualization (p < 0.05) and endoscopist satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to C-ESD.

Conclusions

Use of the MTD significantly reduced procedure time for both expert and non-expert endoscopists performing ESD. Improving the efficiency, safety, and satisfaction of ESD with such a device particularly for non-expert endoscopists is appealing and could potentially minimize the complexity and duration of the procedure allowing for more widespread use of the technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

EMR:

Endoscopic mucosal dissection

ESD:

Endoscopic submucosal resection

MTD:

Magnet traction device

C-ESD:

Conventional ESD

MTD-ESD:

Magnet traction device-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection

TTS:

Through-the-scope

MAG:

Magnetic anchor-guided

References

  1. Deprez PH, Bergman JJ, Meisner S, Ponchon T, Repici A, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Haringsma J (2010) Current practice with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: position statement from a panel of experts. Endoscopy 42:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tanaka S, Oka S, Chayama K (2008) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: present status and future perspective, including its differentiation from endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol 43:641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-008-2223-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gotoda T, Kondo H, Ono H, Saito Y, Yamaguchi H, Saito D, Yokota T (1999) A new endoscopic mucosal resection procedure using an insulation-tipped electrosurgical knife for rectal flat lesions: report of two cases. Gastrointest Endosc 50:560–563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oyama T, Kikuchi Y (2002) Aggressive endoscopic mucosal resection in the upper GI tract—Hook knife EMR method. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 11:291–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2003.11873728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yamamoto H, Kawata H, Sunada K, Sasaki A, Nakazawa K, Miyata T, Sekine Y, Yano T, Satoh K, Ido K, Sugano K (2003) Successful en-bloc resection of large superficial tumors in the stomach and colon using sodium hyaluronate and small-caliber-tip transparent hood. Endoscopy 35:690–694. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-41516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gotoda T, Oda I, Tamakawa K, Ueda H, Kobayashi T, Kakizoe T (2009) Prospective clinical trial of magnetic-anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection for large early gastric cancer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 69:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.03.1127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Oyama T (2012) Counter traction makes endoscopic submucosal dissection easier. Clin Endosc 45:375–378. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.375

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dobashi A, Storm AC, Wong Kee Song LM, Gostout CJ, Deters JL, Miller CA, Knipschield MA, Rajan E (2019) Efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo study in a porcine model (with video). Surg Endosc 33:663–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6486-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis JR (1993) IBM Computer usability satisfaction questionnaires—psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 7:57–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung Y, Kato M, Lee J, Gromski MA, Chuttani R, Matthes K (2013) Prospective, randomized comparison of a prototype endoscope with deflecting working channels versus a conventional double-channel endoscope for rectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental simulation model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 78:756–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mortagy M, Mehta N, Parsi MA, Abe S, Stevens T, Vargo JJ, Saito Y, Bhatt A (2017) Magnetic anchor guidance for endoscopic submucosal dissection and other endoscopic procedures. World J Gastroenterol 23:2883–2890. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i16.2883

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kondo H, Gotoda T, Ono H, Oda I, Kozu T, Fujishiro M, Saito D, Yoshida S (2004) Percutaneous traction-assisted EMR by using an insulation-tipped electrosurgical knife for early stage gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 59:284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Storm AC, Aihara H, Skinner MJ, Thompson CC (2016) A simply placed percutaneous intragastric trocar for use of laparoscopic tools in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 84:1051–1052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Imaeda H, Iwao Y, Ogata H, Ichikawa H, Mori M, Hosoe N, Masaoka T, Nakashita M, Suzuki H, Inoue N, Aiura K, Nagata H, Kumai K, Hibi T (2006) A new technique for endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer using an external grasping forceps. Endoscopy 38:1007–1010. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-925264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas D, Arnau MR, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Rodrigo L, Quintero E (2011) Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection assisted by a new traction method: the clip-band technique. A feasibility study in a porcine model (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 74:1137–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsumoto K, Nagahara A, Sakamoto N, Suyama M, Konuma H, Morimoto T, Sagawa E, Ueyama H, Takahashi T, Beppu K, Shibuya T, Osada T, Yoshizawa T, Ogihara T, Watanabe S (2011) A new traction device for facilitating endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer: the “medical ring”. Endoscopy 43(Suppl 2):E67–E68. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1255923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakamoto N, Osada T, Shibuya T, Beppu K, Matsumoto K, Shimada Y, Konno A, Kurosawa A, Nagahara A, Ohkusa T, Ogihara T, Watanabe S (2008) The facilitation of a new traction device (S-O clip) assisting endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal neoplasms. Endoscopy 40(Suppl 2):E94–E95. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-995603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yonezawa J, Kaise M, Sumiyama K, Goda K, Arakawa H, Tajiri H (2006) A novel double-channel therapeutic endoscope (“R-scope”) facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of superficial gastric neoplasms. Endoscopy 38:1011–1015. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-944779

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho KY, Phee SJ, Shabbir A, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, Yang K, Lomanto D, So BY, Wong YY, Chung SC (2010) Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric lesions by using a master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Gastrointest Endosc 72:593–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aihara H, Ryou M, Kumar N, Ryan MB, Thompson CC (2014) A novel magnetic countertraction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection significantly reduces procedure time and minimizes technical difficulty. Endoscopy 46:422–425. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1364940

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuzaki I, Hattori M, Hirose K, Esaki M, Yoshikawa M, Yokoi T, Kobayashi M, Miyahara R, Hirooka Y, Goto H (2018) Magnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 87:1576–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Girotra M, Triadafilopoulos G, Friedland S (2018) Utility and performance characteristics of a novel submucosal injection agent (Eleview(TM)) for endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:32. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2018.06.01

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang J, Zhang XH, Ge J, Yang CM, Liu JY, Zhao SL (2014) Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20:8282–8287. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i25.8282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T, Tominaga M, Ueno N, Inaba Y, Ito T, Moriichi K, Kohgo Y (2015) Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 81:583–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Small Grant Award 2018, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Developmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Akira Dobashi, Andrew C. Storm, Louis M. Wong Kee Song, Jodie L. Deters, Charles A. Miller, Crystal J. Tholen, Christopher J. Gostout & Elizabeth Rajan

Authors
  1. Akira Dobashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew C. Storm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Louis M. Wong Kee Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jodie L. Deters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles A. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Crystal J. Tholen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher J. Gostout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elizabeth Rajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The endoscopic procedure and manuscript writing: AD. Endoscopic procedure and manuscript review: ACS. Preparation for ex vivo experiment: JLD, CAM, CJT. Data analysis and manuscript review: ER, LMWKS, CJG.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Rajan.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Akira Dobashi and Elizabeth Rajan have intellectual property with Medtronic related to the magnet traction device. Christopher Gostout is Chief Medical Officer for Apollo Endosurgery and a consultant for Olympus Medical Systems. Andrew Storm, Louis M. Wong Kee Song, Jodie Deters, Charles Miller, Crystal Tholen have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

464_2019_6817_MOESM1_ESM.mp4

Supplementary material 1 Video: Magnet traction device-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (MTD-ESD) in an ex vivo porcine colon (MP4 57,552 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dobashi, A., Storm, A.C., Wong Kee Song, L.M. et al. An internal magnet traction device reduces procedure time for endoscopic submucosal dissection by expert and non-expert endoscopists: ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model (with video). Surg Endosc 33, 2696–2703 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06817-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06817-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation