Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps: a comparative review and meta-analysis.
Chandan, Saurabh; Khan, Shahab R; Kumar, Anand; Mohan, Babu P; Ramai, Daryl; Kassab, Lena L; Draganov, Peter V; Othman, Mohamed O; Kochhar, Gursimran S.
Afiliación
  • Chandan S; Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
  • Khan SR; Section of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  • Kumar A; Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
  • Mohan BP; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
  • Ramai D; Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, New York, New York, USA.
  • Kassab LL; Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
  • Draganov PV; Gastroenterology, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
  • Othman MO; Division of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
  • Kochhar GS; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 94(3): 471-482.e9, 2021 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33385463
ABSTRACT
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.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Pólipos del Colon / Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias Colorrectales / Pólipos del Colon / Resección Endoscópica de la Mucosa Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Gastrointest Endosc Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos