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

ABSTRACT

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.