Underwater endoscopic colorectal polyp resection: Feasibility in everyday clinical practice

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Laterally Spreading Tumors: A Post Hoc Analysis of Efficacy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR and CEMR in managing LSTs measuring 10-30 mm.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed on 88 patients with 88 colorectal LSTs, who were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: 42 with CEMR and 46 with UEMR. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection, defined as the absence of neoplastic cells at the resection margin. The secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rates, procedure times, and postprocedural complications. The data were analyzed via chi-square tests, t tests, and the Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the R0 resection rate between UEMR and CEMR. However, UEMR achieved a significantly higher en bloc resection rate, particularly for LSTs ranging from 20 to 30 mm (42.9% for CEMR vs. 100% for UEMR; p = 0.009). Additionally, UEMR resulted in a shorter median procedure time (85.0 s for UEMR vs. 207.5 s for CEMR; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bleeding complications or the number of clips used between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CEMR, UEMR offers a higher en bloc resection rate and a shorter procedure time, particularly for larger lesions, without increasing the risk of complications. UEMR should be considered a preferred option for managing colorectal LSTs, especially those measuring 20-30 mm.

Underwater Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Diving into the Depths

The endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tract lesions embraces different types of techniques, ranging from conventional polypectomy/endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to the field of third-space endoscopy, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), full-thickness resection and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Parallelly, the advent of underwater techniques has served as an add-on for both basic and advanced procedures, since its first report in 2012. We aimed to provide a comprehensive update on the state of the art about the feasibility of underwater basic and advanced techniques for GI endoscopy. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has proved effective and safe in treating > 10 mm sessile or flat or all-size recurrent colonic lesions. Conversely, although data show good effectiveness and safety for <10 mm lesions, it is preferred when high-grade dysplasia is suspected, favouring cold snare polypectomy for all other cases. Moreover, promising data are emerging regarding the feasibility of U-ESD for difficult-to-resect colonic lesions. U-EMR represents a standard of care for treating < 25 mm superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. Data regarding oesophageal, gastric and ampullary lesions remains limited to small cohorts. Finally, using water immersion for POEM has shown a reduction in procedure time compared to the CO2 insufflation technique for vessel coagulation, albeit in a single-centre experience. Based on these results, U-EMR has become a standard for treating intermediate-size colonic and non-ampullary duodenal lesions, as highlighted also in the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. Promising results have been shown in third-space endoscopy studies, even though further prospective studies are awaited to standardise the technique for both ESD and POEM.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of underwater cold snare resection without submucosal injection of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Background and study aims  Adverse events are uncommon with cold snaring, but cold techniques are generally reserved for lesions ≤ 9 mm out of concern for incomplete resection or inability to mechanically resect larger lesions. In a non-distended, water-filled lumen, colorectal lesions are not stretched, enabling capture and en bloc resection of large lesions. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of underwater cold snare resection (UCSR) without submucosal injection (SI) of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky (≤ 5 mm elevation) lesions with small, thin wire snares. Patients and methods  Retrospective analysis of an observational cohort of lesions removed by UCSR during colonoscopy. A single endoscopist performed procedures using a small thin wire (9-mm diameter) cold or (10-mm diameter) hybrid snare. Results  Fifty-three lesions (mean 15.8 mm [SD 6.9]; range 10-35 mm) were removed by UCSR from 44 patients. Compared to a historical cohort, significantly more lesions were resected en bloc by UCSR (84.9 % [45/53]; P  = 0.04) compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (64.0 % [32/50]). Results were driven by high en bloc resection rates for 10- to 19-mm lesions (97.3 % [36/37]; P  = 0.01). Multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed en bloc resection was significantly associated with UCSR compared to conventional EMR (OR 3.47, P  = 0.027). Omission of SI and forgoing prophylactic clipping of post-resection sites did not result in adverse outcomes. Conclusions  UCSR of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky colorectal lesions is feasible with high en bloc resection rates without adverse outcomes. Omission of SI and prophylactic clipping decreased resource utilization with economic benefits. UCSR deserves further evaluation in a prospective comparative study.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an "Underwater" revolution?

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10-19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high-grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate-size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library related to the common endoscopic treatment of 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated polyps published as of April 2020 were searched. Primary outcomes were the R0 resection rate and en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were safety and the recurrence rate. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies involving 3212 polyps were included in the final analysis. Overall, the effectiveness of resection methods with a submucosal uplifting effect, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold EMR and underwater EMR (UEMR), was better than that of methods without a nonsubmucosal uplifting effect [R0 resection rate, 90% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.94, I² = 84%) vs 82% (95% CI 0.78-0.85, I² = 0%); en bloc resection rate 85% (95% CI 0.79-0.91, I² = 83%) vs 74% (95% CI 0.47-0.94, I² = 94%)]. Regarding safety, the pooled data showed that hot resection [hot snare polypectomy, UEMR and EMR] had a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding than cold resection [3% (95% CI 0.01-0.05, I² = 68%) vs 0% (95% CI 0-0.01, I² = 0%)], while the incidences of delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were all low.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods with submucosal uplifting effects are more effective than those without for resecting 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, and cold EMR is associated with a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding than other methods. Additional research is needed to verify the advantages of these methods, especially cold EMR.

Curative value of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for submucosally invasive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Occasionally, colorectal tumors without characteristics of deep submucosal invasion are found to be invasive upon pathological evaluation after endoscopic resection (ER). Because the resection depth for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not been clarified, we evaluated the feasibility of UEMR for pathologically invasive colorectal cancer (pT1-CRC).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated data on the backgrounds and outcomes of patients with pT1-CRC who underwent UEMR between January 2014 and June 2019 at our institute. As a reference standard, the backgrounds and outcomes of pT1-CRCs that had undergone conventional EMR (CEMR) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (median age, 68 years [range, 32-88 years]; 22 men [71%]) were treated with UEMR. Median lesion size was 17 mm (range, 6-50 mm). The endoscopic complete resection rate was 100%. The overall en bloc resection rate was 77%, and the VM0, HM0, and R0 resection rates were 81%, 58%, and 55%, respectively. In cases of pT1a (invasion <1000 μm)-CRC (n = 14), the en bloc, VM0, and R0 resection rates were 92%, 100%, and 71%, respectively. Seventeen patients (five with risk factors for lymph node metastasis and 12 without) were followed up, and no local recurrence and distant metastasis were observed during the follow-up period (median follow-up period, 18 months [range, 6-62 months]) after UEMR. The outcomes of UEMR seemed to be comparable with those of CEMR (n = 32).

CONCLUSIONS

The VM0 rate of UEMR for pT1-CRC, especially for pT1a-CRC, without characteristics of deep submucosal invasion seems feasible.

Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps: a comparative review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR.

METHODS

Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements.

RESULTS

In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

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

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.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.

Results

A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.

Conclusions

Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of adenomas and colorectal serrated lesions: a prospective clinical study

Background

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection has been described as an alternative technique to the endoscopic resection of adenomas and colorectal serrated lesions. We aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of UEMR in a Brazilian setting.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of consecutive patients who underwent UEMR between January and July 2019, in a single tertiary care center. Inclusion criteria were lesions without endoscopic stigmata of deep submucosal invasion in patients referred for endoscopic resection of colorectal adenomas, and serrated lesions detected in a previous colonoscopy. The following features were assessed: complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, resection time, adverse events, and resection infeasibility.

Results

A total of 36 patients underwent UEMR for 51 colorectal lesions. The mean/median lesion size was 16.24/13 mm and the mean/median resection time was 16.97/9.19 min. Histopathology revealed the following: tubular adenoma (43.1%), tubulovillous adenoma (13.7%), serrated lesions (41.2%), and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (2%). Complete resection was achieved in 86.3% of cases; 52.9% of the lesions were removed en bloc, while 47.1% were resected in a piecemeal fashion. UEMR was feasible in 96.1% of cases and failed on 2 occasions, requiring conversion to standard endoscopic mucosal resection. Minor intraoperative bleeding occurred in 5 patients (9.8%) and only 1 presented with delayed bleeding (2%), all controlled endoscopically.

Conclusion

UEMR for removal of adenomas and colorectal serrated lesions was demonstrated to be feasible, safe and effective.

Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), represent the standard of care for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal lesions. In 2012 a novel technique called underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) was described by Binmoeller and colleagues. This substantial variation from the standard procedure was afterwards applied at endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) and recently proposed also for peroral endoscopic myotomy (U-POEM) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (U-EFTR).

METHODS

This paper aims to perform a comprehensive review of the current literature related to supporting the underwater resection techniques with the aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Based on the current literature U-EMR appears to be feasible and safe. Comparison studies showed that U-EMR is associated with higher "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for colonic lesions, but lower "en-bloc" and R0 resection rates for duodenal non-ampullary lesions, compared to standard EMR. In contrast to U-EMR, little evidence supporting U-ESD are currently available. A single comparison study on gastric lesions showed that U-ESD had shorter procedural times and allowed a similar "en-bloc" resection rates compared to standard ESD. No comparison studies between U-ESD and ESD are available for colonic lesions. Finally, only some anecdotal experiences have been reported for U-POEM or U-EFTR, and the feasibility and effectiveness of these techniques need to be further investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Further prospective studies are necessary to better explore the advantages of underwater techniques compared to the respective standards of care, especially in the setting of U-ESD where consistent data are lacking and where standardization of the technique is needed.

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

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.

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, it is still controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness between UEMR and EMR.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Clinical studies comparing the effectiveness or safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps were searched in medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, monographs, theses, and papers presented at conferences. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials and one randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1382 patients (1511 polyps) were included in the study, including 722 who received UEMR and 789 who received EMR. In the UEMR and EMR groups, the en bloc resection rates were 85.87% and 73.89%, respectively, with a relative risk (RR) value of 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.30; P < 0.05). In the sub-group analysis, the en bloc resection rate showed no statistically significant difference between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps equal to or greater than 20 mm in diameter. The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates at 3-6 mo of the UEMR and EMR groups were 3.26% and 15.17%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.27 (95%CI: 0.09-0.83; P < 0.05). The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates of UEMR and EMR at 12 mo were 6.25% and 14.40%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.43 (95%CI: 0.20-0.92; P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of adverse events was 8.17% and 6.21%, respectively, with an RR value of 1.07 (95%CI: 0.50-2.30; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

UEMR is an effective technique for colorectal polyps and appears to have some advantages over EMR, particularly with regard to some treatment outcomes.

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

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 I ² 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.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial : (UEMR vs. CEMR for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps)

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.

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

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.

Underwater EMR for colorectal lesions: a systematic review with meta-analysis (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater EMR is an alternative way to have nonpedunculated colorectal lesions lifted before being resected. The endoscopist takes advantage of the behavior of mucosal lesions floating away from the muscular layer, once immersed in liquid. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to May 2018. Full articles including patients with colorectal lesions resected by the underwater EMR technique were eligible. The complete resection (primary outcome), en bloc resection, recurrence, and adverse event rates were pooled by means of a random or fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Ten studies were eligible, providing data on 508 lesions removed from 433 patients (male/female = 239/194; mean age range 62.2-75.0 years). Six studies were performed in the United States and the other in Europe; 7 studies were prospective. The specific indications for performing underwater EMR varied widely across studies. The complete resection rate was 96.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.77-98.44), with a rate of en bloc resection of 57.07% (95% CI, 43.20%-69.91%). The recurrence rate was 8.82% (95% CI, 5.78-13.25) in a mean endoscopy surveillance period of 7.7 months (range 4-15 months). The postprocedural bleeding rate was 2.85% (95% CI, 1.64-4.90). Bleeding during the procedure was always mild and was considered as part of the procedure in all series. The overall adverse event rate was 3.31% (95% CI, 1.97%-5.52%). No cases of perforation were reported.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this systematic review, underwater EMR appears to be an effective and extremely safe technique for resecting nonpolypoid colorectal lesions.