Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2025
ADSC-sheet Transplantation to Prevent Stricture after Extended Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Published on: February 10, 2017
Clinical benefit of tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cancer: a multicenter, randomized
Xiaotong Fan1, Qi Wu2, Rui Li3
1State Key Laboratory of Cancer Biology, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University (Fourth Military Medical University), Xi'an, China; Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Air Force Medical University (Fourth Military Medical University), Xi'an, China.
Background And Aims:
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely accepted as a primary treatment modality for dysplastic and early cancerous lesions of the GI tract. However, prolonged procedure time and life-threatening adverse events remain obstacles to the successful treatment of esophageal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of tunnel ESD (T-ESD) with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous neoplasms.
Methods:
A prospective, multicenter trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China. Patients with esophageal squamous neoplasms were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo C-ESD or T-ESD. Randomization was stratified by tumor location and circumference extent (<1/2 or ≥1/2). The primary endpoint was procedure time.
Results:
Between January and July 2018, 160 patients were enrolled. One hundred fifty-two patients (76 in the C-ESD group and 76 in the T-ESD group) were included in the final analysis. The median procedure time was 47.3 minutes (interquartile range, 31.7-81.3) for C-ESD and 40.0 minutes (interquartile range, 30.0-60.0) for T-ESD (P = .095). However, T-ESD specifically reduced the median procedure time 34.5% (29.5 minutes) compared with C-ESD for lesions ≥1/2 circumference (P < .001). Among the multiple secondary outcomes, muscular injury was less frequent in the T-ESD group compared with the C-ESD group (18.4% vs 38.2%, P = .007), but complete healing of artificial mucosal defect in 1-month follow-up was more common in the T-ESD group than the C-ESD group (95.9% vs 84.7%, P =.026).
Conclusions:
Our study suggests that T-ESD results in shorter procedure time, specifically for lesions ≥1/2 circumference of the esophagus. In addition, T-ESD has a better safety profile indicated by less frequent muscular injury and improved healing of artificial mucosal defects caused by ESD procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03404921.).
