scholarly journals BEST POLYPECTOMY TECHNIQUE FOR SMALL AND DIMINUTIVE COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caio Vinicius TRANQUILLINI ◽  
Wanderley Marques BERNARDO ◽  
Vitor Ottoboni BRUNALDI ◽  
Eduardo Turiani de MOURA ◽  
Sergio Barbosa MARQUES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Prevention

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Polypectomy of colorectal polyps is the mainstay of colorectal cancer prevention. Identification of the best polypectomy technique is imperative. OBJECTIVE: This review aims at comparing efficacy of nine different resection methods for small colorectal polyps (<10 mm). METHODS: We searched and selected only randomized controlled trials. Primary outcome was complete resection rates of small polyps by histological eradication. Secondary outcomes were: adverse events, retrieval tissue failures rates and duration of procedure. RESULTS: Eighteen trials including 3215 patients and 5223 polyps were analysed. Overall, cold polypectomy had a significantly shorter time of procedure than hot polypectomy (RD -5.92, 95%CI -9.90 to -1.94, P<0.05), with no statistical difference on complete histological eradication (RD 0.08, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.19, P>0.05). Regarding cold polypectomy techniques, cold snare was found superior to cold forceps on complete and en-bloc resection rates and less time consuming. When comparing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hot-snare and cold-snare, the latter showed no-inferiority on histological eradication, adverse events or retrieval tissue failure rates. CONCLUSION: Cold polypectomy is the best technique for resection of small colorectal polyps. Among cold methods, dedicated cold snare was found superior on histological eradication. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection might be considered an option for polyps from 5 to 9 mm.

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.

scholarly journals Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (12) ◽  
pp. E1884-E1894
Author(s):  
Rajat Garg ◽  
Amandeep Singh ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
Gautam Mankaney ◽  
Miguel Regueiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Incomplete Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Mucosal Resection

Abstract Background and study aims Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps has been reported to have good outcomes in recent studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of UEMR to conventional EMR (CEMR). Methods A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcome of UEMR and CEMR for colorectal lesions. Outcomes assessed included incomplete resection, rate of recurrence, en bloc resection, adverse events (AEs) for UEMR and CEMR. Results A total of 1,651 patients with 1,704 polyps were included from nine studies. There was a significantly lower rate of incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.05–0.78, P = 0.02) and polyp recurrence (OR: 0.41, 95 % CI, 0.24–0.72, P = 0.002) after UEMR. Compared to CEMR, rates overall complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.66 (95 % CI, 0.48–0.90) (P = 0.008), and intra-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.59, 95 % CI, 0.41–0.84, P = 0.004) were significantly lower with UEMR. The recurrence rate was also lower for large non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 10 mm (OR 0.24, 95 % CI, 0.10–0.57, P = 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (OR 0.14, 95 % CI, 0.02–0.72, P = 0.01). The rates of en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that UEMR is more effective and safer than CEMR with lower rates of recurrence and AEs. UEMR use should be encouraged over CEMR.

Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Tziatzios ◽  
Paraskevas Gkolfakis ◽  
Konstantinos Triantafyllou ◽  
Lorenzo Fuccio ◽  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection

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 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.

scholarly journals Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. E154-E162
Author(s):  
Choon Seng Chong ◽  
Mark D. Muthiah ◽  
Darren Jun Hao Tan ◽  
Cheng Han Ng ◽  
Xiong Chang Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Colon Polyps ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Submucosal Dissection

Abstract Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection (P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm (P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm (P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm (P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

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 Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for en bloc resection of a neuroendocrine tumor in the duodenal bulb

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Uchima ◽  
Alberto Diez-Caballero ◽  
Jaume Capdevila ◽  
Mercé Rosinach ◽  
Alfredo Mata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumor ◽  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Duodenal Bulb ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection

scholarly journals Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeongseok Kim ◽  
Jisup Kim ◽  
Eun Hye Oh ◽  
Nam Seok Ham ◽  
Sung Wook Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Lesion Size ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Delayed Bleeding ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
The Mean

AbstractSmall rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.

Efficacy of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection with full or partial circumferential incision using a snare tip for difficult colorectal lesions

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (09) ◽  
pp. 871-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naohisa Yoshida ◽  
Ken Inoue ◽  
Osamu Dohi ◽  
Ritsu Yasuda ◽  
Ryohei Hirose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection ◽  
En Bloc Resection ◽  
Bloc Resection ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
Benign Lesions ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Mucosal Resection ◽  
Therapeutic Outcomes ◽  
Mucosal Incision

Abstract Background We analyzed the efficacy of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which is a method of making a full or partial circumferential mucosal incision around a tumor with a snare tip for en bloc resection. Methods We reviewed cases from 2011 to 2018 in which precutting EMR (n = 167) and standard EMR (n = 557) were performed for lesions of 10 – 30 mm. Precutting EMR was indicated for benign lesions of 20 – 30 mm or lesions of < 20 mm for which standard EMR was difficult. Through propensity score matching of the two groups, the therapeutic outcomes for 35 lesions of ≥ 20 mm and 98 lesions of < 20 mm in each group were analyzed. Results In the two sizes of lesion, there were significant differences between the precutting and standard groups in the en bloc resection rate (≥ 20 mm 88.6 % vs. 48.5 %, P < 0.001; < 20 mm 98.0 % vs. 85.7 %, P = 0.004) and the histological complete resection rate (≥ 20 mm 71.4 % vs. 42.9 %, P = 0.02; < 20 mm 87.8 % vs. 67.3 %, P < 0.001). Conclusion Precutting EMR enabled high en bloc resection rates in cases involving difficult lesions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document