scholarly journals IDDF2021-ABS-0119 Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins after endoscopic mucosal resection reduces adenoma recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikko Theodore Raymundo ◽  
Joseph Erwin Dumagpi ◽  
Tim Lin ◽  
Jonard Co
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Thermal Ablation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adenoma Recurrence ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Mucosal Defect

scholarly journals Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 580-581
Author(s):  
Caglayan Keklikkiran ◽  
◽  
Osman Cavit Ozdogan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Thermal Ablation ◽  
Adenoma Recurrence ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Mucosal Defect

scholarly journals Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (> 20 mm) non pedunculated colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. E74-E81
Author(s):  
Saurabh Chandan ◽  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Daryl Ramai ◽  
Smit Deliwala ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Resection Margins ◽  
Effective Technique ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Adenoma Recurrence ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Soft Coagulation

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) > 20 mm in size can be challenging. Piecemeal EMR of these lesions results in high rates of adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) of post resection margins is a safe and effective technique to prevent adenoma recurrence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this technique. Patients and methods Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies that reported on outcomes of post EMR STSC for LSTs > 20 mm in size. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds of adenoma recurrence as well as pooled proportion of adverse events including intraprocedural and delayed bleeding as well as intraprocedural perforation events. Results Six studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four cohort studies with 2122 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall pooled odds of adenoma recurrence at SC1 with post EMR STSC compared to no STSC was 0.27 (95 % 0.18–0.42; I2 = 0 %), P < 0.001. Pooled rate of adenoma recurrence at SC1 in post EMR STSC cohort was 6 %. Rates of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding and intraprocedural perforation were 10.3 %, 6.5 % and 2 % respectively. Conclusions Our results show that thermal ablation of resection margins with STSC in LSTs > 20 mm is a safe and effective technique in reducing the incidence of adenoma recurrence.

ID: 3525882 THERMAL ABLATION OF POST-EMR-DEFECTS REDUCES ADENOMA RECURRENCE AFTER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION OF COLONIC POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND METAANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. AB89-AB90
Author(s):  
Pujan Kandel ◽  
Mohamed Abusalih ◽  
Deepesh Yadav ◽  
Murtaza Hussain ◽  
Santosh K. Dhungana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Thermal Ablation ◽  
Colonic Polyps ◽  
Adenoma Recurrence ◽  
Mucosal Resection

scholarly journals Thermal Ablation of Mucosal Defect Margins Reduces Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (3) ◽  
pp. 604-613.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Klein ◽  
David J. Tate ◽  
Vanoo Jayasekeran ◽  
Luke Hourigan ◽  
Rajvinder Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Thermal Ablation ◽  
Adenoma Recurrence ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Mucosal Defect

Normal saline solution versus other viscous solutions for submucosal injection during endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harathi Yandrapu ◽  
Madhav Desai ◽  
Sameer Siddique ◽  
Prashanth Vennalganti ◽  
Sreekar Vennalaganti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Normal Saline ◽  
Saline Solution ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Solution Versus ◽  
Submucosal Injection ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Viscous Solutions

scholarly journals Systematic review and meta‐analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Arezzo ◽  
Roberto Passera ◽  
Nicola Marchese ◽  
Giuseppe Galloro ◽  
Raffaele Manta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

scholarly journals Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (10) ◽  
pp. E1264-E1272
Author(s):  
Faisal Kamal ◽  
Muhammad Ali Khan ◽  
Wade Lee-Smith ◽  
Zubair Khan ◽  
Sachit Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has shown promising results in the management of colorectal polyps. Some studies have shown better outcomes compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare UEMR and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Methods We searched several databases from inception to November 2019 to identify studies comparing UEMR and EMR. Outcomes assessed included rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, recurrent/residual polyps on follow-up colonoscopy, complete resection confirmed by histology and adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. Funnel plots and Egger’s test were used to assess publication bias. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessment of quality of observational studies, and the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs Results Seven studies with 1291 patients were included; two were randomized controlled trials and five were observational. UEMR demonstrated statistically significantly better efficacy in rates of en bloc resection, pooled RR 1.16 (1.08, 1.26), complete macroscopic resection, pooled RR 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), recurrent/residual polyps; pooled RR 0.26 (0.12, 0.56) and complete resection confirmed by histology; pooled RR 0.75 (0.57, 0.98). There was no significant difference in adverse events (AEs); pooled RR 0.68 (0.44, 1.05). Conclusions This meta-analysis found statistically significantly better rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, and lower risk of recurrent/residual polyps with UEMR compared to EMR. We found no significant difference in AEs between the two techniques.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document