Comparison of Needle Knife versus Scissors Forceps for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective Randomized Study

5Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a grasping-type knife, called Clutch Cutter (CC), for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD). Methods: This was a randomized prospective study. Patients who underwent C-ESD for colorectal neoplasms >20 mm and <50 mm in size were enrolled, dividing into two groups: ESD using needle type of dual knife alone (D-group) and circumferential incision using dual knife followed by submucosal dissection using CC (CC-group). The primary outcome was the self-completion rate. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative complication rate, procedure time, and en bloc resection rate. Results: A total of 45 patients were allocated to the D-group and 43 to the CC-group were allocated. The self-completion rate was higher in the CC-group (87% [39/45] vs. 98% [42/43]). All of the six patients with an incomplete procedure in the D-group were completely resected with CC use. The intraoperative complication rate was not significant in either group (D vs. CC: 2% vs. 0%). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the D-group than that in the CC-group (62.0 vs. 81.1 min; p = 0.0036). The en bloc resection rate was 100% in the D-group and 98% in the CC-group. Conclusions: While dual knife use is superior to CC in terms of time efficiency, the use of CC may be a safe and efficacious option for achieving complete C-ESD.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yachida, T., Kobara, H., Kozuka, K., Nakatani, K., Tada, N., Matsui, T., … Masaki, T. (2023). Comparison of Needle Knife versus Scissors Forceps for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Prospective Randomized Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062329

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free