ID: 3518501 EN-BLOC RESECTION RATE OF COLORECTAL POLYPS ≤ 20 MM IS LOW AMONG ADVANCED ENDOSCOPY TRAINEES

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB70
Author(s):  
William W. King ◽  
Peter V. Draganov ◽  
Andrew Y. Wang ◽  
Dushant Uppal ◽  
Nikhil A. Kumta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc

scholarly journals Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhixin Zhang ◽  
Yonghong Xia ◽  
Hongyao Cui ◽  
Xin Yuan ◽  
Chunnian Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a recently developed technique and can be performed during water-aided or ordinary colonoscopy for the treatment of colorectal polyps. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) of small non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Methods Patients with small size, non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (4–9 mm in size) who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were enrolled in this multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, an UEMR group and a CEMR group. Efficacy and safety were compared between groups. Results In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the complete resection rate was 83.1% (59/71) in the UEMR group and 87.3% (62/71) in the CEMR group. The en-bloc resection rate was 94.4% (67/71) in the UEMR group and 91.5% (65/71) in the CEMR group (difference 2.9%; 90% CI − 4.2 to 9.9%), showed noninferiority (noninferiority margin − 5.7% < − 4.2%). No significant difference in procedure time (81 s vs. 72 s, P = 0.183) was observed. Early bleeding was observed in 1.4% of patients in the CEMR group (1/71) and 1.4% of patients in the UEMR group (1/71). None of the patients in the UEMR group complained of postprocedural bloody stool, whereas two patients in the CEMR group (2/64) reported this adverse event. Conclusion Our results indicate that UEMR is safer and just as effective as CEMR in En-bloc resection for the treatment of small colorectal polyps as such, UEMR is recommended as an alternative approach to excising small and non-pedunculated colorectal adenomatous polyps. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov, NCT03833492. Retrospectively registered on February 7, 2019.

The efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10-mm colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De-feng Li ◽  
Ming-Guang Lai ◽  
Mei-feng Yang ◽  
Zhi-yuan Zou ◽  
Jing Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection

Abstract Background Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a promising strategy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyp removal. However, the efficacy and safety of the technique for the treatment of ≥ 10-mm colorectal polyps remain unclear. We aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for polyps sized 10–19 mm and ≥ 20 mm. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles from January 2012 to November 2019. Primary outcomes were the rates of adverse events and residual polyps. Secondary outcomes were the complete resection, en bloc resection, and R0 resection rates. Results 18 articles including 1142 polyps from 1093 patients met our inclusion criteria. The overall adverse event and residual polyp rates were slightly lower for UEMR when removing colorectal polyps of 10–19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (3.5 % vs. 4.3 % and 1.2 % vs. 2.6 %, respectively). The UEMR-related complete resection rate was slightly higher for colorectal polyps of 10–19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (97.9 % vs. 92.0 %). However, the en bloc and R0 resection rates were dramatically higher for UEMR removal of polyps of 10–19 mm vs. ≥ 20 mm (83.4 % vs. 36.1 % and 73.0 % vs. 40.0 %, respectively). In addition, univariate meta-regression revealed that polyp size was an independent predictor for complete resection rate (P = 0.03) and en bloc resection (P = 0.01). Conclusions UEMR was an effective and safe technique for the removal of ≥ 10-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. However, UEMR exhibited low en bloc and R0 resection rates for the treatment of ≥ 20-mm polyps.

scholarly journals The introduction of colorectal endoscopic submucosal hydrodissection at a Western Center: results and learning curve

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Ramos-Zabala ◽  
Adolfo Parra-Blanco ◽  
Sabina Beg ◽  
Marian García-Mayor ◽  
Ana Domínguez-Pino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Conversion Rate ◽  
Curative Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Incomplete Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) is an evolving technique in Western countries. The use of hydrodissection has been established as an effective technique for safe resection. However, it is unknown if the adoption of this technique can help a novice perform ESD safely without prior experience or formal tutorial. Here we aimed to determine the results of the introduction of endoscopic submucosal hydrodissection for the treatment of complex colorectal polyps and establish the learning curve for this technique, at a European tertiary hospital. Methods This study included data from 80 consecutive CR-ESDs performed for complex colorectal polyps, by a single endoscopist within a structured training program. The main outcome was en bloc resection rate, while secondary outcomes included complications (perforation and bleeding), knife en bloc (KEB) resection rate, knife-snare en bloc resection rate, conversion rate to endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR), complete resection rate, curative resection rate. To explore the impact of experience, procedures were divided into 4 groups of 20 each, with outcomes measures compared between these. Results The overall en bloc resection rate was 75%. KEB resection was obtained in 15%, 25%, 50%, and 80% cases in the consecutive periods (period 1 vs 4, p<0.001; periods 1, 2 and 3 vs 4, p<0.001). Conversion rate to EPMR was obtained in 40%, 25%, 25% and 5% respectively (period 1,2 and 3 vs 4; p=0.031). Curative resection was achieved in 55%, 75%, 70% and 95% respectively (p=0.037). Series results were 75% R0 resection, 23.7% conversion to EPMR, and 1.2% incomplete resection. Complications included perforations (7.5%) and bleeding (3.75%), there was no significant difference in the 4 periods of training. Multivariate analysis revealed factors more likely to result in non-en bloc versus en bloc resection were polyp size > 35 mm [70% vs. 23.4%; OR 13.2 (95% CI: 1.7-100.9); p=0. 013], severe fibrosis [40% vs. 11.7%; OR 10.2 (95% CI: 1.2-86.3); p= 0.033] and non-use of CO2 [65% vs. 30%; OR 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01-0.53); p= 0.008]. Conclusions CR-ESD by hydrodissection can be implemented in a western centre and offers safe and effective treatment for complex polyps.

scholarly journals Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study

2019 ◽  
Vol 07 (11) ◽  
pp. E1528-E1536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsu-Chih Chien ◽  
Noriya Uedo ◽  
Ping-Hsin Hsieh
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Muscle Layer ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Matched Pairs ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method for removing sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm. Recently, underwater EMR (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. However, the effectiveness and safety of UEMR compared with conventional EMR is un clear. Patients and methods In this 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the en bloc resection rates, procedure time, intraprocedural and delayed bleeding rates, and incidence of muscle layer injury. We also performed subgroup analyses by sizes of polyps (< 20 mm and ≥ 20 mm). Results Among 350 polyps in 315 patients from August 2012 to November 2017, we identified 121 PS-matched pairs. Mean polyp size was 16.8 mm. With similar en bloc resection rates (EMR: 82.6 % vs. UEMR: 87.6 %, rate difference: 5.0, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: – 4 to 13.9 %), UEMR demonstrated a shorter resection time (10.8 min vs. 8.6 min, difference: – 2.2 min, 95 % CI: – 4.1 to – 0.3 min) and a lower intraprocedural bleeding rate (15.7 % vs. 5.8 %, rate difference: – 9.9 %, 95 % CI: – 17.6 to – 2.2 %). Incidence of delayed bleeding and muscle layer injury were low in both groups. For polyps < 20 mm, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar in both groups. For polyps ≥ 20 mm (42 PS-matched pairs), the UEMR group has a comparable en bloc resection rate with shorter procedure time and superior safety outcomes Conclusions UEMR achieved an en bloc resection rate comparable to conventional EMR with less intraprocedural bleeding and a shorter procedure time.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of large pedunculated polyps with wide stalks: a retrospective multicenter study

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (01) ◽  
pp. 77-80
Author(s):  
Hideyuki Chiba ◽  
Jun Tachikawa ◽  
Jun Arimoto ◽  
Keiichi Ashikari ◽  
Hiroki Kuwabara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Large Pedunculated Polyps ◽  
Submucosal Fibrosis ◽  
Retrospective Multicenter Study ◽  
Severe Fibrosis

Abstract Background Endoscopic resection of large pedunculated colorectal polyps is technically difficult, especially when the polyp is large and has such a thick stalk that it is either too difficult or impossible to resect prophylactically by a conventional snare. Here, we evaluated the feasibility of ESD for large pedunculated polyps with wide stalks. Methods 29 patients with large pedunculated polyps that were not resectable by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection were enrolled in the study. Results En bloc resection was achieved in 28/29 polyps. One suspended case was due to severe fibrosis with muscle retraction signs. The mean diameter of the 29 polyp heads was 39.7 (standard deviation 6.9) mm. Submucosal fibrosis was present in 16 polyps (9 mild; 7 severe). The stalks of severely fibrotic polyps were significantly thicker than those of polyps with no or mild fibrosis. The curative resection rate was 85.7 % without severe complications. Conclusions ESD is feasible for the removal of large pedunculated polyps with wide stalks when conventional snare resection is difficult or impossible.

scholarly journals Prevention and Management of Complications and Education in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2511
Author(s):  
Yoshitsugu Misumi ◽  
Kouichi Nonaka
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Endoscopic Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Educational Methods ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Management Of Complications

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered superior to endoscopic mucosal resection as an endoscopic resection because of its higher en bloc resection rate, but it is more difficult to perform. As ESD techniques have become more common, and the range of treatment by ESD has expanded, the number of possible complications has also increased, and endoscopists need to manage them. In this report, we will review the management of critical complications, such as hemorrhage, perforation, and stenosis, and we will also discuss educational methods for acquiring and improving ESD skills.

scholarly journals Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Visible Dysplasia Treatment in Ulcerative Colitis Patients: Cases Series and Systematic Review of Literature

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaele Manta ◽  
Angelo Zullo ◽  
Donato Alessandro Telesca ◽  
Danilo Castellani ◽  
Ugo Germani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Neoplastic Lesions

Abstract Background and Aims Ulcerative colitis [UC] patients are at an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer due to chronic inflammation. Endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD] allows removal of non-invasive neoplastic lesions in the colon, but few data are available on its efficacy in UC patients. Methods Data from consecutive UC patients diagnosed with visible dysplastic lesions in the colon who underwent ESD were evaluated. The en bloc removal, R0 resection and complication rates were calculated. Local recurrence and metachronous lesions during follow-up were identified. A systematic review of the literature with pooled data analysis was performed. Results A total of 53 UC patients [age: 65 years; range 30–74; M/F: 31/22] underwent ESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100%, and the R0 resection rate was 96.2%. Bleeding occurred in seven [13.2%] patients, and perforation in three [5.6%] cases, all treated at endoscopy. No recurrence was observed, but two metachronous lesions were detected. Data from six other studies [three Asian and three European] were available. By pooling data, en bloc resection was successful in 88.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.5–92) of 216 lesions and in 91.8% [95% CI = 87.3–94.8] of 208 patients. R0 resection was achieved in 169 ESDs, equivalent to a 78.2% [95% CI = 72.3–83.2] rate for lesions and 81.3% [95% CI = 75.4–86] rate for patients. No difference between European and Asian series was noted. Conclusions This pooled data analysis indicated that ESD is a suitable tool for safely and properly removing non-invasive neoplastic lesions on colonic mucosa of selected UC patients.

scholarly journals Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. E1820-E1826
Author(s):  
William W. King ◽  
Peter V. Draganov ◽  
Andrew Y. Wang ◽  
Dushant Uppal ◽  
Amir Rumman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Polyp Size ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Piecemeal Resection

Abstract Background and study aims En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80–16.50; P = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23–16.88; P = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55–18.4; P = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31–38.9; P = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13–7.91; P = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05–22.61; P = 0.04). Conclusions In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

scholarly journals Long-Term Clinical Efficacy and Perioperative Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Early Gastric Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yajie Zhao ◽  
Chengfeng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Local Recurrence Rate ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Postoperative Bleeding ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Prolonged Operative Time

Background. To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Methods. We searched the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to April 2017 and included studies that compared the outcomes of ESD with EMR for EGC. These eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria were screened out and were assessed by two independent investigators. Result. In total, 18 retrospective cohort studies were eligible for analysis. Our results indicated that ESD is more beneficial than EMR in increasing the complete resection rate and en bloc resection rate and decreasing the local recurrence rate. However, ESD prolonged operative time and increased incidence of gastric perforation than EMR. No differences were found in postoperative bleeding rate between the two approaches. Conclusion. Compared with EMR, ESD offers higher complete resection rate, higher en bloc resection rate, and lower local recurrence rate but has prolonged operative time and increased incidence of gastric perfusion. There is no statistical difference in the rate of postoperative bleeding between the two groups. However, the above conclusion needs further verification by well-designed, randomized trials with larger samples and long follow-up periods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document