Heat sink effect of underwater polypectomy in a porcine colon model

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.

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors decreases the incidence of post-electrocoagulation syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection (U-ESD) is a recently developed procedure that has the potential to prevent post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) owing to its heat-sink effect. We aimed to clarify whether U-ESD decreases the incidence of PECS compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD).

METHODS

A total of 205 patients who underwent colorectal ESD (C-ESD: 125; U-ESD: 80) were analyzed. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for patient backgrounds. Ten C-ESD and two U-ESD patients with muscle damage or perforation during ESD were excluded when comparing PECS. The primary outcome was to compare the incidence of PECS between the U-ESD and C-ESD groups (54 matched pairs). Secondary outcomes were to compare procedural outcomes between the C-ESD and U-ESD groups (62 matched pairs).

RESULTS

Among the 78 patients who underwent U-ESD, PECS occurred in only one patient (1.3%). Adjusted comparisons between the U-ESD and C-ESD groups demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of PECS in the U-ESD group (0% vs 11.1%; P = 0.027). Median dissection speed was significantly faster in the U-ESD than in the C-ESD group (10.9 mm2 /min vs 6.9 mm2 /min; P < 0.001). En bloc and complete resection rates were 100% in the U-ESD group. Although perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in one patient each (1.6%) as adverse events in the U-ESD group, there were no differences compared with the C-ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that U-ESD effectively decreases the incidence of PECS and is a faster and safer method for colorectal ESD.

Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors May Reduce Procedure Time Compared with Underwater EMR (with Video)

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two municipal hospitals. We identified 24 patients with SNADETs of 3–18 mm in diameter who underwent UEMR or GIEMR. One lesion was excluded from the analysis because it was found to be in the stomach after surgery. The primary outcome was procedure time.

Results

GIEMR significantly reduced the procedure time compared with UEMR (5 min vs. 10 min, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference between the UEMR and GIEMR groups for en bloc resection rate (93% vs. 100%, P = 1.0) and R0 resection rate (57% vs. 80%, P = 0.39). No serious complications were observed in either group.

Conclusions

GIEMR of SNADET has the potential to reduce procedure time compared with UEMR and may be particularly effective in areas where immersion in water is difficult.