Underwater versus conventional EMR for colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis

A balance of clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging: A CT colonography comparative case report

Computer tomography colonography (CTC) is a non-invasive procedure which has replaced barium enema. CTC uses helical images of a cleansed and gas-distended colon for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. This case study compares 2 patients: one with positive pathology (patient A) and another as comparator (patient B) with a similar pathology to discuss and debate possible treatment pathways. Patient (A) CTC showed 2 polyps: 6 mm and 10 mm, which the colorectal surgeons thought only needed follow-up. Our comparator (patient B) displayed a similar pathology which measured 9 mm. In this case (patient B), there was mutual agreement with the surgeons for polypectomy but without haematology involvement which was atypical of the usual pathway. The surgeons did not see the 9 mm polyp at polypectomy which could be due to observer error or radiology reporter error. Given that conventional colonoscopy is more sensitive in detecting polyps; a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp, however, the surgeons gave patient (B) a virtual appointment and requested a repeat CTC in 12 months. In colorectal medicine there can be variations in the treatment of patients with polyps. While a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp in patient (B), the surgeons' decisions regarding the patient's treatment reflected a balance of confidence in clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging which can reduce unnecessary requests and use of diagnostic tests.

Ultra-minimally invasive endoscopic techniques and colorectal diseases: Current status and its future

Colorectal diseases are increasing due to altered lifestyle, genetic, and environmental factors. Colonoscopy plays an important role in diagnosis. Advances in colonoscope (ultrathin scope, magnetic scope, capsule) and technological gadgets (Balloon assisted scope, third eye retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE, dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, etc.) have made colonoscopy more comfortable and efficient. Now in-vivo microscopy can be performed using confocal laser endomicroscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, etc. Besides developments in diagnostic colonoscopy, therapeutic colonoscopy has improved to manage lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, obstruction, perforations, resection polyps, and early colorectal cancers. The introduction of combined endo-laparoscopic surgery and robotic endoscopic surgery has made these interventions feasible. The role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of colorectal diseases is also increasing day by day. Hence, this article is to review cutting-edge developments in endoscopic principles for the management of colorectal diseases.

Outcomes of cold snare EMR of nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with use of electrocautery (conventional EMR) has historically been used to remove large duodenal adenomas; however, use of electrocautery can predispose to adverse events including delayed bleeding and perforation. Cold snare EMR (cs-EMR) has been shown to be safe and effective for removal of colon polyps, but data regarding its use in the duodenum are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study of patients with nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm who underwent cs-EMR from October 2014 to May 2023. Patients who received any form of thermal therapy were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and predictors of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients underwent resection of 127 nonampullary duodenal adenomas with cs-EMR. Follow-up data were available in 89 cases (70.1%). The recurrent adenoma rate was 31.5% (n = 28). Adverse events occurred in 3.9% (n = 5), with 4 cases of immediate bleeding (3.1%) and 1 case of delayed bleeding (.8%). There were no cases of perforation. The presence of high-grade dysplasia was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (odds ratio, 10.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.1-102.1]; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective multicenter study demonstrates that cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas is safe and technically feasible with an acceptable recurrence rate. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare outcomes of cs-EMR with conventional and underwater EMR.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been an emerging substitute for conventional EMR (CEMR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficiency and safety of the two techniques for removing ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched up to February 2023 to identify eligible studies that compared the outcomes of UEMR and CEMR. This meta-analysis was conducted on the en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, adverse events rate and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 1,727 colorectal polyps were included: 881 were removed by UEMR, and 846 were removed by CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in en bloc resection rate [Odds ratio(OR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.36-2.10, p<0.00001, I2 = 33%], R0 resection rate(OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.14-2.03, p = 0.004, I2 = 31%) and complete resection rate(OR 1.67, 95%CI 1.06-2.62, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%) as well as a significant reduction in procedure time(MD ‒4.27, 95%CI ‒7.41 to ‒1.13, p = 0.008, I2 = 90%) and recurrence rate(OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, p = 0.006, I2 = 6%). Both techniques were comparable in adverse events rate.

CONCLUSION

UEMR can be a safe and efficient substitute for CEMR in removing ≥10 mm sessile or flat colorectal polyps. More studies verifying the advantages of UEMR over CEMR are needed to promote its application.

Analyzing methods for reducing recurrence rates after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an indirect pairwise comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite advances in EMR techniques, a high polyp recurrence rate remains a challenge. Due to the scarcity of direct comparisons, we performed an indirect comparison of conventional EMR (EMR alone), underwater EMR (U-EMR), and EMR + adjuvant thermal ablation of polypectomy margins to assess polyp recurrence rates.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2023, for studies reporting polyp recurrence rates after EMR for large nonpedunculated polyps (>15 mm) with or without adjuvant techniques (snare tip soft coagulation [STSC]/argon plasma coagulation [APC]). An indirect comparison was performed by using the frequentist method. The p-score was calculated to identify preferred intervention. Publication bias was assessed by using a comparison-adjusted funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 9 full articles were identified. On direct comparisons, EMR + STSC had 82% reduced odds (odds ratio, .18; 95% confidence interval, .13-.26; P < .001), whereas U-EMR alone had 77% reduced odds (odds ratio, .23; 95% confidence interval, .08-.67; P = .007) of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. On indirect comparison, all interventions had significantly lower odds of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. The p-score ranking showed that EMR + STSC seems a potential first method in reducing the odds of polyp recurrence, followed by U-EMR, EMR + APC, and EMR alone.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR + STSC seems to provide favorable odds for reducing polyp recurrence postresection for large nonpedunculated polyps. Standardization of methods to detect residual polyp and prevent polyp recurrence at the time of EMR are required.

Efficacy and Safety of Thermal Ablation after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Large colonic polyps during colonoscopy can be managed by Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). To decrease the polyp recurrence rate, thermal ablation methods like argon plasma coagulation (APC) and snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) have been introduced. We performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these modalities. (2) Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review, through 5 January 2024, of databases including Embase, PubMed, SciELO, KCI, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. Using a random effects model, we conducted a frequentist approach network meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Safety and efficacy endpoints including rates of recurrence, bleeding, perforation, and post polypectomy syndrome were compared. (3) Results: Our search yielded a total of 13 studies with 2686 patients. Compared to placebo, both APC (RR: 0.33 CI: 0.20-0.54, p < 0.01) and STSC (RR: 0.27, CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.01) showed decreased recurrence rates. On ranking, STSC showed the lowest recurrence rate, followed by APC and placebo. Regarding individual adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between either of the thermal ablation methods and placebo. (4) Conclusions: We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation after EMR for decreasing recurrence of adenoma.

Precision endoscopy in the era of climate change and sustainability

Global warming caused by increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has a direct impact on human health. Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy contributes significantly to GHG emissions due to energy consumption, reprocessing of endoscopes and accessories, production of equipment, safe disposal of biohazardous waste, and travel by patients. Moreover, GHGs are also generated in histopathology through tissue processing and the production of biopsy specimen bottles. The reduction in unnecessary surveillance endoscopies and biopsies is a practical approach to decrease GHG emissions without affecting disease outcomes. This narrative review explores the role of precision medicine in GI endoscopy, such as image-enhanced endoscopy and artificial intelligence, with a focus on decreasing unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies in the surveillance and diagnosis of premalignant lesions in the esophagus, stomach, and colon. This review offers strategies to minimize unnecessary endoscopic procedures and biopsies, decrease GHG emissions, and maintain high-quality patient care, thereby contributing to sustainable healthcare practices.

Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21-30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set at p = 0.224.

RESULT

Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 ± 6) than in the ESD group (48 ± 29) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Japan Registry of Clinical Trial as jRCT1030210015 and jRCT1030210177.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I 2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs. Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

Cold resection for colorectal polyps: where we are and where we are going?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of colonic precancerous lesions has been demonstrated to significantly decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Among resection techniques, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been shown as a highly feasible, effective and safe option and is widely used in clinical practice, being regarded as the first-line technique for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. On the other hand, conventional hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), namely the gold standard treatments for larger polyps, may be occasionally associated to complications due to electrocautery injury.

AREAS COVERED

To overcome these shortcomings of electrocautery-based resection techniques, in the last few years CSP has been increasingly assessed as a treatment option for additional indications, with a focus on nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm.

EXPERT OPINION

This review aims to present current and widened indications of CSP discussing the latest findings from the most remarkable studies, with an insight into technical issues, novelties and potential advances in the near future.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) without submucosal injection for sessile colorectal polyps was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (cEMR). However, the optimal resection strategy remains a topic of debate. Hence, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of uEMR and cEMR in patients with sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

a comprehensive search of the literature from 2000 till January 2022 was performed from Medline, CENTRAL and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cEMR vs uEMR for colorectal polyps. The evaluated outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time, overall bleeding and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a random effect model.

RESULTS

six studies were included, out of which four were full-text articles and two were conference abstracts. En bloc resection (RR 1.26, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.60), R0 resection (RR 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.96-1.26), overall bleeding (RR 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.54-1.34) and recurrence rate (RR 0.75, 95 % CI: 0.45-1.27) were comparable between uEMR and cEMR. However, uEMR was associated with a shorter procedure time (mean difference [MD] -1.55 minutes, 95 % CI: -2.71 to -0.39). According to the subgroup analysis, uEMR led to a higher rate of en bloc resection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.07-1.86) and R0 resection (RR 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.41) for polyps ≥ 10 mm in size.

CONCLUSION

both uEMR and cEMR have a comparable safety and efficacy. For polyps larger than 10 mm, uEMR may have an advantage over cEMR and should be the topic for future studies.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naïve and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resection. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block randomization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 ± 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Longly-attached cap can contribute to en bloc underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of 20-30 mm colorectal intramucosal lesions

Background and study aims  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is effective for colorectal intramucosal lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a longly-attached cap in UEMR improves the en bloc resection rate for 20-30 mm lesions. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary institute. Candidates for the study were systematically retrieved from an endoscopic and pathological database from October 2016 to December 2020. We assessed the procedural outcomes with UEMR for lesions ≥ 20 mm in size and the clinical factors contributing to en bloc resection. Results  A total of 52 colorectal lesions that underwent UEMR were included. The median procedure time was 271 (66-1264) seconds. The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were 75 % and 73 %, respectively. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one (1.9 %) case, but no bleeding occurred. Delayed bleeding occurred in one (1.9%) case, but no delayed perforation occurred. Regarding tumor size, macroscopic type, tumor location, and the presence or absence of a history of abdominal operation, there was no significant difference between the en bloc resection and piecemeal resection groups. The visibility of the whole lesion, a longly-attached cap, and sessile serrated lesions were more frequently observed in the en bloc resection group than in the piecemeal resection group ( P  < 0.001, P  = 0.01, and P  = 0.04, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that a longly-attached cap was the only independent factor associated with en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). Conclusions  A longly-attached cap might contribute to en bloc resection.

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases

Background and study aims  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods  The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results  Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm ² /min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm ² /min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions  U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study

Background and study aims  Curability of colorectal tumors is associated with resection depth and layer in endoscopic resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not undergone sufficient histopathological evaluation. We conducted a pilot study to compare the effectiveness, including resection depth and layer, of UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). Patients and methods  This study was a single-center, retrospective study. Patients with colorectal lesions were treated by UEMR or CEMR between January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible patients were selected from included patients in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. We compared the resection depth and layer and treatment results between the UEMR and CEMR groups. Results  We evaluated 55 patients undergoing UEMR and 291 patients undergoing CEMR. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 54 lesions in each group. The proportion of specimens containing submucosal tissue was 100 % in both groups. The median thickness of the submucosal tissue was significantly greater in the CEMR group than in the UEMR group [1235 µm (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1020-1530 µm) vs. 950 µm (95 % CI, 830-1090 µm), respectively]. However, vertical margins were negative in all lesions in both groups. Conclusions  Our findings suggest that the median thickness of submucosal tissue in the UEMR group was about 1,000 μm. Even though the resection depth achieved with UEMR was more superficial than that achieved with CEMR, UEMR may be a treatment option, especially for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in diameter without suspicious findings of submucosal deeply invasive cancer.

Resection depth for small colorectal polyps comparing cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection

Background and study aims  Small colorectal polyps are removed by various methods, including cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), but the indications for using these methods are unclear. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of CSP, HSP, and UEMR for small polyps, focusing on the depth of the resected specimens. Patients and methods  Outpatients with non-pedunculated small polyps (endoscopically diagnosed as 6 to 9 mm), resected by two endoscopists between July 2019 and September 2020, were enrolled. We histologically evaluated the specimens resected via CSP, HSP, and UEMR. The main outcome was the containment rate of the muscularis mucosa (MM) and submucosa (SM) tissues. Results  Forty polyps resected via CSP (n = 14), HSP (n = 12), or UEMR (n = 14) were enrolled after excluding 13 polyps with resection depths that were difficult to determine. The rates of specimens containing MM and SM tissue differed significantly (57 % and 29 % for CSP, 92 % and 83 % for HSP, and 100 % and 100 % for UEMR, respectively ( P  = 0.005 for MM and P  < 0.001 for SM tissue). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed UEMR was an independent factor relating to the containment of SM tissue. The thickness of SM tissue by CSP, HSP, and UEMR were 52 μm, 623 μm, and 1119 μm, respectively ( P  < 0.001). The thickness by CSP was significantly less than those by HSP and UEMR ( P  < 0.001, Bonferroni correction). Conclusions  UEMR could be the best method to contain SM tissue without injection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the indication of UEMR for small polyps.

Polypectomy for Large Polyps with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Beginning in 1955, when the saline injection was first described to prevent transmural injury during polyp fulguration, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has grown exponentially, both in scope and in practice. Because EMR is an organ-preserving technique even for large polyps, this allows for comparable outcomes to surgery, but substantially improved cost savings and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. To achieve this, however, one must master the 4 fundamental components that are critical to the success of EMR- time, team, tools, and technique. This article aims to provide a compendium of state of the art updates within the field of endoluminal resection.

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

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.

Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: Identifying High-Risk Patients

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a potentially severe complication of therapeutic colonoscopy which can result in hospital readmission and re-intervention. Over the last decade, rates of DPPB reported in the literature have fallen from over 2% to 0.3–1.2%, largely due to improvements in resection technique, a shift towards cold snare polypectomy, better training, adherence to guidelines on periprocedural antithrombotic management, and the use of antithrombotics with more favourable bleeding profiles. However, as the complexity of polypectomy undertaken worldwide increases, so does the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of DPPB. Risk factors can be categorised according to patient, polyp and personnel related factors, and their integration together to provide an individualised risk score is an evolving field. Strategies to reduce DPPB include safe practices relevant to all patients undergoing colonoscopy, as well as specific considerations for patients identified to be high risk. This narrative review sets out an evidence-based summary of factors that contribute to the risk of DPPB before discussing pragmatic interventions to mitigate their risk and improve patient safety.

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection—cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device—while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611).

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a follicular lymphoma: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of a follicular lymphoma (FL) presenting as a gastric subepithelial tumor (SET), along with periodic follow up can be a treatment option because gastrointestinal FL cells tend to reside in the primary site, which may explain its indolent nature.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A gastric lesion was found incidentally during a screening endoscopy in 73-year-old woman without any gastrointestinal symptom.

DIAGNOSIS

The patient was diagnosed with a grade I FL that was 1.4 cm large, at the greater curvature of lower-body.

INTERVENTION

We performed underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UW-EMR), and there was no serious complication, such as bleeding and perforation.

OUTCOMES

Complete en bloc resection was achieved with UW-EMR. Follow-up endoscopic biopsy after 3 months revealed no residual tumor on the resection site.

CONCLUSION

UW-EMR may be a simple and safe resection method for gastric FL without metastases, that measure >1 cm.

EVALUATION OF UNDERWATER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION FOR COLORECTAL POLYPS IN AN OUTPATIENT CLINIC IN BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

Since 2012, a new technique for resection of large polyps has been described, the underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR). Some advantages that emerge from it is the needless of injection in submucosal layer and a greater chance of complete capture of the polyp.

OBJECTIVE

There are few studies of UEMR in Brazil. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this technique in one Brazilian center.

METHODS

This case series was conducted from February to December of 2020. Colorectal polyps greater than 9 mm without features of deep submucosal invasion were resected using UEMR.

RESULTS

Twenty-four large polyps were resected with the UEMR approach from 24 patients. The mean size of the polys was 19 mm, ranging from 12 to 35 mm. All lesions were successful resected and 66% (16/24) were resected en bloc. In histologic analyses, most of them were adenomas (70.8%) and only one had deep submucosal invasion. There were no cases of acute complications, such perforation or acute bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The UEMR is a safe and feasible procedure. With the emerging data on the procedure, it seems to be a wonderful tool in preventing colorectal cancer and its applicability and scope should be encourage to surpass reference centers.

Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (CEMR) and was reported to be useful for resecting large colonic polyps. Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these two methods by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We comprehensively searched multiple databases until July 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR with CEMR. The primary outcomes were the proportion of R0 resection and mean procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of en bloc resection and all adverse events. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in www.protocols.io (Protocol Integer ID: 40849). We included six RCTs (1,374 polyps). We judged that a meta-analysis was not available, and the data were summarized narratively for the proportion of R0 resection. Regarding procedure time, UEMR likely resulted in a large reduction (mean difference = -64.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -122.5 to -6.0 seconds; I2 = 86%; moderate certainty of evidence). UEMR likely resulted in a large increase in en bloc resection (odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.98; I2 = 60%; moderate certainty of evidence). Percentages of adverse events were 0-17% with CEMR and 0-16% with UEMR. In summary, UEMR might have higher efficacy than CEMR in the endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with likely a large reduction in procedure time.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable.

AIM

To compare the surgical, histological, and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps, with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world.

METHODS

Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc, complete resection, margin involvement, resection time, need for additional surgery, complications, and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR.

RESULTS

Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included. When compared to EMR, the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate, and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence. ESD led to increased procedural time, need for additional surgery, and perforation risk. No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD. Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate, bleeding risk and recurrence. In subgroup analysis, Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4% and 0.0002%, respectively, as compared to perforation risk of 8% and 1%, respectively, in reports coming from rest of the world.

CONCLUSION

ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR. With appropriate training, ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps, without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion.