Hybrid Versus Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Polyps (SHORT-ESD)
NCT ID: NCT05347446
Last Updated: 2025-01-15
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
247 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2022-05-09
Study Completion Date
2024-12-19
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Comparison Rectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection to Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
NCT02198729
Colonic Polyps
COMPLETED
NA
This Randomized, Single-center Trial Aims to Evaluate the Advantages of Underwater ESD (U-ESD) in Comparison to the Conventional ESD (C-ESD).
NCT07040020
Precancerous Lesions
RECRUITING
NA
Evaluation of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Efficacy
NCT01879904
Colorectal Neoplasms
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
COMPLETED
NA
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Large Non Pedunculated Colonic Adenomas: a Randomized Comparative Trial
NCT03962868
Colonic Polyp
UNKNOWN
NA
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Upper Gastrointestinal Canal With HybridKnife
NCT01185483
Endoscopy, Digestive System
Esophageal Neoplasms
Stomach Neoplasms
UNKNOWN
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) permits the en-bloc resection of colorectal lesions irrespective of size. En-bloc resection, as opposed to piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, provides a more definitive resection specimen for accurate histopathological assessment, and is associated with a low risk for recurrence1,2.
Current guidelines from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES), the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA), recommend ESD as a preferred strategy for superficial colorectal lesions with suspicion for advanced neoplasia or early cancer (e.g. depressed morphology, advanced surface pattern, nongranular laterally spreading tumor \[LST-NG\], polyps, ≥20 mm in size)3-5. In these cases, ESD procures an ideal pathological specimen for submucosal staging, provides curative intent, and prevents unnecessary surgery for lesions with low risk for lymph node metastasis6 Yet, ESD in the United States and Europe has been primarily restricted to specialized centers for a variety of reasons, notably due to its technical complexity7. Technical difficulty resides primarily in the process of submucosal dissection using endoknives. Maintaining adequate visualization of the dissection plane during ESD is often regarded the rate-limiting step (Figure 1 Non-hybrid ESD). Other factors, including maintaining the endoknife parallel to the dissection plane and accounting for paradoxical scope movements due to patient-related factors (e.g. colon redundancy, peristalsis, breathing movements) represent formidable challenges during colorectal ESD. These technical hurdles can lead to prolonged procedural times and higher risk for adverse events8. Overcoming these barriers is necessary for the safe and widespread adoption of ESD in Western clinical practice.
To reduce the technical difficulty of colorectal ESD, several techniques have been introduced, such as the introduction of traction techniques to assist with the exposure and visualization of the dissection plane during ESD8. However, many of these traction techniques require additional devices, second-hand assistance, and have a learning curve of their own9-12. Hence, many of these methods have not been widely adopted.
Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure7. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space. The main advantage of this method is that it reduces the need for deep submucosal dissection underneath the center of the lesion, which intuitively would reduce procedural time and risk of adverse events. Furthermore, snare resection is a technique that is familiar to most endoscopists in the West.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes between hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal lesions7. In aggregate, when compared with conventional ESD among over 2000 patients, hybrid ESD was associated with a shorter procedural time (mean difference of 18.5 minutes, p=0.003). The rate of adverse events decreased for hybrid ESD compared with conventional ESD (odds ratio 1.56; p=0.04), but no difference when stratified by perforation rate (odds ratio 1.86; p=0.11) or delayed bleeding (odds ratio 1.15; p=0.7). Conversely, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower rate of en-bloc resection when compared to conventional ESD (odds ratio 0.31; p\<0.001)7. There are several limitations with this data. For one, 14 out of the 16 studies included in this analysis were observational in design. Hence, important factors, such as lesion size, endoscopist experience, type of snare, were not accounted for in most of the studies. Notably, the meta-analysis included studies in which hybrid ESD was used as a rescue therapy after failed conventional ESD, which further complicates the interpretability of the results. Furthermore, only 4 studies originated from the West (Europe) and none from the United States, limiting the generalizability of this technique by US endoscopists. In all, high-quality studies evaluating hybrid ESD for colorectal lesions are needed.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
This trial is timely, as ESD has been endorsed in recent years by multiple international and national GI societies. This study will provide information on the feasibility of hybrid ESD as a modified technique that can be more widely adopted in the West. The findings of this trial will therefore help identify a safe and practical ESD technique for large colorectal polyps.
Current guidelines from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES), the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA), recommend ESD as a preferred strategy for superficial colorectal lesions with suspicion for advanced neoplasia or early cancer (e.g. depressed morphology, advanced surface pattern, nongranular laterally spreading tumor \[LST-NG\], polyps, ≥20 mm in size)3-5. In these cases, ESD procures an ideal pathological specimen for submucosal staging, provides curative intent, and prevents unnecessary surgery for lesions with low risk for lymph node metastasis6 Yet, ESD in the United States and Europe has been primarily restricted to specialized centers for a variety of reasons, notably due to its technical complexity7. Technical difficulty resides primarily in the process of submucosal dissection using endoknives. Maintaining adequate visualization of the dissection plane during ESD is often regarded the rate-limiting step (Figure 1 Non-hybrid ESD). Other factors, including maintaining the endoknife parallel to the dissection plane and accounting for paradoxical scope movements due to patient-related factors (e.g. colon redundancy, peristalsis, breathing movements) represent formidable challenges during colorectal ESD. These technical hurdles can lead to prolonged procedural times and higher risk for adverse events8. Overcoming these barriers is necessary for the safe and widespread adoption of ESD in Western clinical practice.
To reduce the technical difficulty of colorectal ESD, several techniques have been introduced, such as the introduction of traction techniques to assist with the exposure and visualization of the dissection plane during ESD8. However, many of these traction techniques require additional devices, second-hand assistance, and have a learning curve of their own9-12. Hence, many of these methods have not been widely adopted.
Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure7. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space. The main advantage of this method is that it reduces the need for deep submucosal dissection underneath the center of the lesion, which intuitively would reduce procedural time and risk of adverse events. Furthermore, snare resection is a technique that is familiar to most endoscopists in the West.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes between hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal lesions7. In aggregate, when compared with conventional ESD among over 2000 patients, hybrid ESD was associated with a shorter procedural time (mean difference of 18.5 minutes, p=0.003). The rate of adverse events decreased for hybrid ESD compared with conventional ESD (odds ratio 1.56; p=0.04), but no difference when stratified by perforation rate (odds ratio 1.86; p=0.11) or delayed bleeding (odds ratio 1.15; p=0.7). Conversely, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower rate of en-bloc resection when compared to conventional ESD (odds ratio 0.31; p\<0.001)7. There are several limitations with this data. For one, 14 out of the 16 studies included in this analysis were observational in design. Hence, important factors, such as lesion size, endoscopist experience, type of snare, were not accounted for in most of the studies. Notably, the meta-analysis included studies in which hybrid ESD was used as a rescue therapy after failed conventional ESD, which further complicates the interpretability of the results. Furthermore, only 4 studies originated from the West (Europe) and none from the United States, limiting the generalizability of this technique by US endoscopists. In all, high-quality studies evaluating hybrid ESD for colorectal lesions are needed.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
This trial is timely, as ESD has been endorsed in recent years by multiple international and national GI societies. This study will provide information on the feasibility of hybrid ESD as a modified technique that can be more widely adopted in the West. The findings of this trial will therefore help identify a safe and practical ESD technique for large colorectal polyps.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Colorectal Lesions
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
This is a randomized trial where the subject will either be randomized to Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection or Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. The provider nor the participant will be aware of what group the subject will be randomized to.
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Participants
Caregivers
Once the subject is consented and enrolled after intraprocedural confirmation of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the randomization envelope will be opened to assign the subject to either Hybrid ESD or Non-Hybrid ESD.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Hybrid ESD
Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Hybrid ESD
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Method of removing colon lesion
Non-Hybrid ESD
A partial or complete circumferential mucosal incision will be performed to expose the submucosa around and underneath the polyp. Endoscopic resection will then proceed via conventional ESD, submucosal tunneling or pocket technique.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Non-hybrid ESD
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Method of removing colon lesion
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Hybrid ESD
Method of removing colon lesion
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Non-hybrid ESD
Method of removing colon lesion
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Any patient ≥18 years
* Ability to provide informed consent
* Patient scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps
* Non-pedunculated polyps measuring ≥20 mm in lateral diameter by endoscopic estimation
* Ability to provide informed consent
* Patient scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps
* Non-pedunculated polyps measuring ≥20 mm in lateral diameter by endoscopic estimation
Exclusion Criteria
* Age \< 18 years
* Inability to provide informed consent
* Pedunculated polyps (as defined by Paris classification type Ip)8
* Lesions \< 20 mm in lateral diameter
* Suspected adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (e.g. Paris III morphology, Kudo type Vn pit pattern)4,13
* Previously attempted incomplete endoscopic resection (EMR) of the lesion
* Uncorrected coagulopathy defined as an elevated INR ≥ 1.5 and/or platelet count \< 50,000
* Any standard contraindication to anesthesia and/or colonoscopy
* Pregnancy or lactating women
* Inability to provide informed consent
* Pedunculated polyps (as defined by Paris classification type Ip)8
* Lesions \< 20 mm in lateral diameter
* Suspected adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (e.g. Paris III morphology, Kudo type Vn pit pattern)4,13
* Previously attempted incomplete endoscopic resection (EMR) of the lesion
* Uncorrected coagulopathy defined as an elevated INR ≥ 1.5 and/or platelet count \< 50,000
* Any standard contraindication to anesthesia and/or colonoscopy
* Pregnancy or lactating women
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
AdventHealth
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Dennis Yang, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
AdventHealth Orlando
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, United States
Site Status
AdventHealth Orlando
Orlando, Florida, United States
Site Status
Parkview
Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States
Site Status
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas, United States
Site Status
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Yang D, Othman M, Draganov PV. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May;17(6):1019-1028. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.030. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
Reference Type
RESULT
ASGE Technology Committee; Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS, Hwang JH, Komanduri S, Manfredi M, Konda V, Murad FM, Siddiqui UD, Banerjee S. Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1311-25. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
Reference Type
RESULT
Pimentel-Nunes P, Pioche M, Albeniz E, Berr F, Deprez P, Ebigbo A, Dewint P, Haji A, Panarese A, Weusten BLAM, Dekker E, East JE, Sanders DS, Johnson G, Arvanitakis M, Ponchon T, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Bisschops R. Curriculum for endoscopic submucosal dissection training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):980-992. doi: 10.1055/a-0996-0912. Epub 2019 Aug 30.
Reference Type
RESULT
Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, Yahagi N, Yamano H, Saito S, Hisabe T, Yao T, Watanabe M, Yoshida M, Kudo SE, Tsuruta O, Sugihara KI, Watanabe T, Saitoh Y, Igarashi M, Toyonaga T, Ajioka Y, Ichinose M, Matsui T, Sugita A, Sugano K, Fujimoto K, Tajiri H. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015 May;27(4):417-434. doi: 10.1111/den.12456. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
Reference Type
RESULT
Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO, Fukami N. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;17(1):16-25.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.041. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
Reference Type
RESULT
Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T, Mandolesi D, Farioli A, Cucchetti A, Frazzoni L, Bhandari P, Bellisario C, Bazzoli F, Repici A. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jul;86(1):74-86.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
Reference Type
RESULT
McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2021 Oct;53(10):1048-1058. doi: 10.1055/a-1266-1855. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
Reference Type
RESULT
The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Yang D, Draganov PV. Gaining traction: pulley-ing your weight during endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):185-187. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.021. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Ge PS, Thompson CC, Jirapinyo P, Aihara H. Suture pulley countertraction method reduces procedure time and technical demand of endoscopic submucosal dissection among novice endoscopists learning endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized ex vivo study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.032. Epub 2018 Aug 25.
Reference Type
RESULT
Iwasa T, Nakadate R, Onogi S, Okamoto Y, Arata J, Oguri S, Ogino H, Ihara E, Ohuchida K, Akahoshi T, Ikeda T, Ogawa Y, Hashizume M. A new robotic-assisted flexible endoscope with single-hand control: endoscopic submucosal dissection in the ex vivo porcine stomach. Surg Endosc. 2018 Jul;32(7):3386-3392. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6188-y. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
Reference Type
RESULT
Turiani Hourneaux de Moura D, Aihara H, Jirapinyo P, Farias G, Hathorn KE, Bazarbashi A, Sachdev A, Thompson CC. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection versus conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: outcomes of a randomized pilot study in endoscopists without prior ESD experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Aug;90(2):290-298. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.016. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR, Kashida H, Kogure E. Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy. 2001 Apr;33(4):367-73. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-826104. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Acosta RD, Abraham NS, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Early DS, Eloubeidi MA, Evans JA, Faulx AL, Fisher DA, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Lightdale JR, Muthusamy VR, Pasha SF, Saltzman JR, Shaukat A, Shergill AK, Wang A, Cash BD, DeWitt JM. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jan;83(1):3-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.035. Epub 2015 Nov 24. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. Epub 2014 Dec 2. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Saito Y, Abe S, Inoue H, Tajiri H. How to Perform a High-Quality Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. Gastroenterology. 2021 Aug;161(2):405-410. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.051. Epub 2021 Jun 2. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Draganov PV, Aihara H, Karasik MS, Ngamruengphong S, Aadam AA, Othman MO, Sharma N, Grimm IS, Rostom A, Elmunzer BJ, Jawaid SA, Westerveld D, Perbtani YB, Hoffman BJ, Schlachterman A, Siegel A, Coman RM, Wang AY, Yang D. Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in North America: A Large Prospective Multicenter Study. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jun;160(7):2317-2327.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.02.036. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
Reference Type
RESULT
Bae JH, Yang DH, Lee S, Soh JS, Lee S, Lee HS, Lee HJ, Park SH, Kim KJ, Ye BD, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Byeon JS. Optimized hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Mar;83(3):584-92. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.057. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
Reference Type
RESULT
Takezawa T, Hayashi Y, Shinozaki S, Sagara Y, Okada M, Kobayashi Y, Sakamoto H, Miura Y, Sunada K, Lefor AK, Yamamoto H. 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. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
Reference Type
RESULT
Lambin T, Rivory J, Wallenhorst T, Legros R, Monzy F, Jacques J, Pioche M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: How to be more efficient? Endosc Int Open. 2021 Nov 12;9(11):E1720-E1730. doi: 10.1055/a-1554-3884. eCollection 2021 Nov.
Reference Type
RESULT
Klein A, Bourke MJ. How to Perform High-Quality Endoscopic Mucosal Resection During Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2017 Feb;152(3):466-471. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.12.029. Epub 2017 Jan 3. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D, Williams SJ, Byth K, Bourke MJ. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut. 2017 Oct;66(10):1779-1789. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309848. Epub 2016 Jul 27.
Reference Type
RESULT
Wang AY, Hwang JH, Bhatt A, Draganov PV. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance After Pathologically Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia in the United States: Commentary. Gastroenterology. 2021 Dec;161(6):2030-2040.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.08.058. Epub 2021 Oct 21.
Reference Type
RESULT
Boda K, Oka S, Tanaka S, Nagata S, Kunihiro M, Kuwai T, Hiraga Y, Furudoi A, Nakadoi K, Okanobu H, Miwata T, Okamoto S, Chayama K. Real-world learning curve analysis of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3344-3351. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07104-2. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
Reference Type
RESULT
Hotta K, Oyama T, Shinohara T, Miyata Y, Takahashi A, Kitamura Y, Tomori A. Learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colorectal tumors. Dig Endosc. 2010 Oct;22(4):302-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.01005.x.
Reference Type
RESULT
Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 1988; 52:129-83.
Reference Type
RESULT
Yang D, Hasan MK, Jawaid S, Singh G, Xiao Y, Khalaf M, Tomizawa Y, Sharma NS, Draganov PV, Othman MO. Hybrid Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (Short-Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection). Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Dec 1;119(12):2436-2443. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002897. Epub 2024 Jun 24.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1880189
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Impact of Hybrid-ESD+ and LiftUp® on the en Bloc/R0 Rate in Colorectal Adenomas Between 2 and 3 cm
NCT05517369
WITHDRAWN
NA
Recurrence Rate After Endoscopic Resection of , Laterally Spreading Tumor Granular Type (LST-G) of the Colon and Rectum: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs. Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
NCT06815406
RECRUITING
NA
ESD for Colorectal LSL Using a Selective Strategy - a Prospective Cohort Study
NCT04008407
RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD)
NCT05468008
RECRUITING
Efficacy and Safety of a New Polypectomy Snare for Cold-polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps
NCT02245854
COMPLETED
NA
French Colorectal ESD Cohort in Experts Centers
NCT04592003
RECRUITING
Evaluation of the Resection of Adenoma and Colic Adenocarcinoma by EMR Piecemeal or EMR/ESD Hybrid Technique
NCT02935049
UNKNOWN
An Endoscopic Barbed-clips Suturing for Colorectal ESD
NCT05045911
UNKNOWN
NA
ESD Versus TAMIS for Early Rectal Neoplasms
NCT03217773
UNKNOWN
NA
Comparison of Methods for Removing Large Benign Broad-based Epithelial Neoplasms of the Colon: ESD and EMR.
NCT07041229
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
NA
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
NCT01378507
UNKNOWN
NA
Reducing Neoplasia Recurrence After Non-thermal Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps
NCT07242820
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Soft Coagulation for the Prevention of Adenoma Recurrence
NCT01789749
COMPLETED
NA
Outcomes of Perforation After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
NCT05728710
UNKNOWN
Efficacy and Safety of Robot-assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasm
NCT06973083
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Therapy for Laterally Spreading Tumors (LSTs)
NCT06464874
COMPLETED
Complete Closure After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps
NCT06807073
RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Sub-mucosal Dissection With the Nestis® Jet Injector System With a Bi-functional Catheter: First Prospective Trial
NCT01913223
COMPLETED
NA
Multi-center Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of ESD in the Western Population
NCT02989818
RECRUITING
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection vs. Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for Rectal Neoplasia
NCT06902701
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Water-jet Assisted ESD vs Conventional ESD Technique for Treating Early Gastric Cancer
NCT01943253
COMPLETED
NA
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Laterally Spreading Lesions.
NCT04593407
RECRUITING
NA
Comparative Effectiveness of Hot Versus Cold Snare Polypectomy of Small Colorectal Polyps
NCT02484079
COMPLETED
NA
A Double Balloon Endoscopic Platform for ESD
NCT03551379
COMPLETED
Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Versus Standard Therapy of the Colorectal Neoplasia
NCT03868605
UNKNOWN
NA