Comparable Data Between Double Endoscopic Intraluminal Operation and Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Cancer

  • Makoto SohdaEmail author
  • Kengo Kuriyama
  • Tomonori Yoshida
  • Yuji Kumakura
  • Hiroaki Honjo
  • Makoto Sakai
  • Tatsuya Miyazaki
  • Hiroyuki Kuwano
Original Article



Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer has been used increasingly as an alternative to surgery because it is minimally invasive and has a high rate of en bloc resection. We previously reported that the double endoscopic intraluminal operation (DEILO) is a useful technique for ESD of early esophageal cancers. In the current study, we showed comparable short-term data between DEILO and conventional ESD groups to demonstrate the further advanced use of DEILO.


We studied 111 esophageal cancer patients with 111 lesions treated using endoscopic surgery between January 2010 and June 2016 at Gunma University Hospital. Of the patients, 51 underwent DEILO (DEILO group) and 60 underwent conventional ESD (ESD group). We compared the operable performance, complications, and pathological outcome between the ESD and DEILO groups.


There was no significant difference in operable performance. However, the DEILO group showed a significantly lower rate of mediastinal emphysema compared to the ESD group (p = 0.025). Overall, the DEILO group showed a lower complication rate compared to the ESD group, although there was no apparent significance.


To our knowledge, this is the first report comparing DEILO and conventional ESD for esophageal cancer. The results showed that DEILO is not inferior to conventional ESD. DEILO is an excellent endoscopic surgical method, although it has some limitations compared to conventional ESD.


ESD DEILO En bloc resection Endoscopic surgery Complication Mediastinal emphysema Conventional ESD Esophageal cancer 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Probst A, Aust D, Märkl B, Anthuber M, Messmann H (2015) Early esophageal cancer in Europe: endoscopic treatment by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 47:113–121Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kobayashi T, Gotohda T, Tamakawa K, Ueda H, Kakizoe T (2004) Magnetic anchor for more effective endoscopic mucosal resection. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gotoda T, Oda I, Tamakawa K, Ueda H, Kobayashi T, Kakizoe T (2008) Prospective clinical trial of magnetic-anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection for large early gastric cancer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 69:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Repici A (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection: established, or still needs improving?, Gastrointest Endosc 69:16–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fukami N (2013) What we want for ESD is a second hand! Traction method. Gastrointest Endosc 78:274–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 23:2883–2890CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishiwaki S, Araki H, Shirakami Y, Niwa Y, Iwashita M, Hatakeyama H, Saitoh K (2009) Transgastrostomic endoscopy-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy,, Feb 5, 2009.
  8. 8.
    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 38:1007–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oyama T(2012) Counter traction makes endoscopic submucosal dissection easier. Clin Endosc 45:375–8CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen PJ, Huang WC, Wang HP, Chang WK, Hsieh TY, Shih SC, Wang HY, Liu CY(2012) Percutaneous transgastric traction-assisted esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial in a porcine model. Scand J Gastroenterol 47:1386–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuwano H, Mochiki E, Asao T, Kato H, Shimura T, Tsutsumi S (2004) Double endoscopic intralumenal operation for upper digestive tract diseases: proposal of a novel procedure. Ann Surg 239:22–27CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mochiki E, Yanai M, Toyomasu Y, Ogata K, Andoh H, Ohno T, Aihara R, Asao T, Kuwano H (2010) Clinical outcomes of double endoscopic intralumenal surgery for early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 24:631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toyomasu Y, Suzuki M, Yanoma T, Kimura A, Kogure N, Ogata K, Ohno T, Mochiki E, Kuwano H (2016) Outcomes of patients with early gastric cancer who underwent double endoscopic intraluminal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:178–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sohda M, Saito H, Yoshida T, Kumakura Y, Honjyo H, Hara K, Ozawa D, Suzuki S, Tanaka N, Sakai M, Miyazaki T, Fukuchi M, Kuwano H(2017) Utility of double endoscopic intraluminal operation for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:3333–3338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Japanese Society for Esophageal Disease. Guidelines for the clinical and pathological studies on carcinoma of the esophagus (10th edition). Tokyo: Kanehara, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ota M, Nakamura T, Hayashi K, Ohki T, Narumiya K, Sato T, Shirai Y, Kudo K, Yamamoto M (2012) Usefulness of clip traction in the early phase of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc 24:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Makoto Sohda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kengo Kuriyama
    • 1
  • Tomonori Yoshida
    • 1
  • Yuji Kumakura
    • 1
  • Hiroaki Honjo
    • 1
  • Makoto Sakai
    • 1
  • Tatsuya Miyazaki
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Kuwano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Surgical ScienceGunma University Graduate School of MedicineMaebashiJapan

Personalised recommendations