Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Aug 27, 2021; 13(8): 772-787
Published online Aug 27, 2021. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i8.772
Table 3 Reported comparison studies of the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the clutch cutter vs using conventional knives
OrganRef.ESD using the clutch cutterESD using the conventional knivesP value
EsophagusEsaki et al[19], 2020Type of knife-IT-KN, DK, FK, SMK-
Number of patients13636-
Median procedure time (min)4466.50.02
En-bloc resection rate (%)10097.21
R0 resection rate (%)88.986.11
Perforation rate (%)05.60.20
Delayed bleeding rate (%)00-
StomachNagai et al[21], 2016Type of knife-IT-2K-
Number of patients5661-
Median procedure time (min)66410.04
En-bloc resection rate (%)93980.195
R0 resection rate (%)NDND-
Perforation rate (%)3.61.6-
Delayed bleeding rate (%)3.61.6-
StomachHayashi et al[22], 2018Type of knife-IT-2K,SMK-
Number of patients14444-
Median procedure time (min)4988.5<0.001
En-bloc resection rate (%)100100-
R0 resection rate (%)100100-
Perforation rate (%)00-
Delayed bleeding rate (%)2.36.80.620
StomachDohi et al[23], 2019Type of knife-IT-2K-
Number of patients16161-
Median procedure time (min)44560.005
En-bloc resection rate (%)1001001
R0 resection rate (%)93.41000.06
Perforation rate (%)04.90.12
Delayed bleeding rate (%)06.60.06
DuodenumDohi et al[24], 2020Type of knife-FK-
Number of patients4737-
Median procedure time (min)36540.045
En-bloc resection rate (%)10094.60.191
R0 resection rate (%)97.983.80.04
Intra-ESD perforation rate (%)04.90.014
Delayed perforation rate (%)2.18.10.316
Delayed bleeding rate (%)4.200.501