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.

Irrigating Acetic Acid Solution During Colonoscopy for the Detection of Sessile Serrated Neoplasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Misdiagnosed sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are important precursors for interval colorectal cancers. AIMS: We investigated the usage of acetic acid (AA) solution for improving the detection of SSLs in the right colon in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A tandem observation of the right colon was performed in 412 consecutive patients. A first inspection was performed under white light high-definition endoscopy. In the AA group, a low concentration vinegar solution (AA: 0.005%) irrigated by a water pump in the right colon was compared with a plain solution of normal saline (NS) in the diagnostic yield of SSLs during the second inspection. Secondary outcomes in overall polyp detection were measured. RESULTS: Qualitative comparisons showed significant differences in the detection rates of all polyps except adenomas, with remarkable improvement in the demonstration of advanced (> 20 mm), SSLs, and hyperplastic polyps during the second inspection of the right colon using the AA solution. Significant improvement was also noted in the AA group, as far as the mean number of polyps/patient detected, not only in SSLs (AA group: 0.14 vs. NS group: 0.01, P < 0.001), but also in all histological types and all size-categories in the right colon. Small (≤ 9 mm) polyps were detected at a higher rate in the sigmoid colon expanding the effect of the method in the rest of the colon. CONCLUSION: AA-assisted colonoscopy led to a significant increase in SSLs detection rate in the right colon in a safe, quick, and effective manner.

Distal Biliary Stent Migration in Patients with Irretrievable Bile Duct Stones: Long-Term Comparison Between Straight and Double-Pigtail Stents.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged biliary stenting may be considered in high-risk patients with irretrievable bile duct stones (IBDS). Distal stent migration (DSM) is a known complication, although data beyond the recommended interval of temporary stenting (3-6 months) are lacking. We compared the long-term incidence of DSM between straight and double-pigtail stents in patients with IBDS. METHODS: Consecutive patients with IBDS undergoing plastic biliary stenting (1/2009-12/2019) were retrospectively reviewed. DSM was confirmed on follow-up examination when the stent was no longer present at the papillary orifice nor fluoroscopically visible in the bile duct. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to determine estimates and predictors of DSM. RESULTS: Overall, 618 biliary stenting procedures (410 patients) were included: 289 with a straight stent (group A) and 329 with a double-pigtail (group B). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, the DSM rates were 8.4 and 14.6% at 6 months, 21.4 and 27.7% at 12 months, 27 and 43.5% at 18 months, and 37.2 and 60.4% at 24 months, for groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.004). Double-pigtail stents were at higher risk for DSM (HR = 7.38, p = 0.04), whereas an inverse correlation was noted with age (HR = 0.97, p = 0.0001). Considering only temporary stenting procedures (≤ 6 months; n = 297), the probability of DSM was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In a setting of prolonged stenting for IBDS, the probability of DSM appears to be higher when a double-pigtail stent is used and in younger patients. A relative anti-migratory advantage of double-pigtail over straight stents appears negligible in this study.

The high rate of spontaneous migration of small size common bile duct stones may allow a significant reduction in unnecessary ERCP and related complications: results of a retrospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Common bile duct stones (CBDS) can spontaneously migrate through the duodenal papilla. In this case, ERCP could be unnecessary and a significant rate of complications could be avoided. In this study, we aim at retrospectively evaluating the rate of spontaneous stone passage in patients with an imaging diagnosis of CBDS and at analysing the factors associated to spontaneous stone migration. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multi-centre analysis of patients undergoing ERCP for CBDS in a 12-month period. 1016 patients with CBDS were analysed. In all patients CBDS was diagnosed with adequate imaging methods performed prior to ERCP. ERCPs with failed biliary cannulation were excluded. Data regarding patients' characteristics, imaging findings and ERCP procedure were analysed. RESULTS: 1016 patients with CBDS undergoing ERCP were analysed (male sex 43.3%; mean age 69.9 ± 16.5 years). Diagnosis of CBDS was obtained by EUS in 415 patients (40.8%), MR in 343 (33.8%), CT in 220 (21.7%), and US in 38 (3.7%). No stones were found at ERCP in 179 patients (17.6%), in 14 (6.2%) when ERCP was performed within 6 h from imaging study, in 114 (18.5%) between 7 h and 7 days, in 32 (24.6%) between 8 and 29 days, and in 19 (43.2%) after 30 days. The rate of unnecessary ERCP occurred significantly more frequently in patients in whom imaging methods demonstrated either sludge or ≤ 5 mm CBDS (29.9 vs. 8.3%; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Spontaneous migration of small CBDS is a frequent event, and ≤ 5 mm size and a delay in ERCP > 7 days represent predictive factors for it. We suggest that CBDS ≤ 5 mm should not undergo immediate removal and this fact would allow reducing the rate of unnecessary ERCP with their related complications. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and demonstrate the safety of a conservative management in this setting.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020.

1: ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3: ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

PROPHYLAXIS: 1:  ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. TREATMENT: 7:  ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9:  ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Comparison of the Uptake of Screening Colonoscopy between Physicians and the General Population in Greece.

AIM: To evaluate the uptake of screening colonoscopy among physicians as compared to the general population. METHODS: Asymptomatic physicians, aged 45-67 years, at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), working in the participating National Health System hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the uptake of screening colonoscopy. The results were compared to those in a background healthy population, aged 50-75 years, inhabitants of a Greek county, who were offered a free access to a screening colonoscopy program for CRC. High-risk adenomas were those ≥10 mm in diameter or any adenoma, regardless of size, with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia. RESULTS: Overall, 267 of 782 physicians and 402 of 6,534 nonphysicians underwent a screening colonoscopy (uptake rates 34.2 and 6.2% respectively, p = 0.00001). Screening colonoscopy has yielded 4 adenocarcinomas (1.6%), 14 high-risk adenomas (5.5%), and 61 low-risk adenomas (25.7%) in the physicians' group. Corresponding figures in the nonphysician arm were 4 (1), 26 (6.5), and 107 (26.6%), respectively. The main reason among physicians for nonadherence was indifference/negligence (n = 213). CONCLUSION: The proportion of physicians undergoing screening colonoscopy for CRC is significantly higher compared to the general population; however, it does remain suboptimal.

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-10 mm: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cold snare polypectomy is an established method for the resection of small colorectal polyps; however, significant incomplete resection rates still leave room for improvement. We aimed to assess the efficacy of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), compared with hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR), for nonpedunculated polyps sized 6 - 10 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a dual-center, randomized, noninferiority trial. Consecutive adult patients with at least one nonpedunculated polyp sized 6 - 10 mm were enrolled. Eligible polyps were randomized (1:1) to be treated with either CS-EMR or HS-EMR. Both methods involved submucosal injection of a methylene blue-tinted normal saline solution. The primary noninferiority end point was histological eradication evaluated by postpolypectomy biopsies (noninferiority margin - 10 %). Secondary outcomes included occurrence of intraprocedural bleeding, clinically significant postprocedural bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS: Among 689 patients screened, 155 patients with 164 eligible polyps were included (CS-EMR n = 83, HS-EMR n = 81). The overall rate of histological complete resection was 92.8 % in the CS-EMR group and 96.3 % in the HS-EMR group (difference 3.5 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] - 4.15 to 11.56), showing noninferiority of CS-EMR compared with HS-EMR. CS-EMR was shown to be noninferior both for polyps measuring 6 - 7 mm (CS-EMR 93.3 %; HS-EMR 100 %; 95 %CI - 7.95 to 21.3) and those of 8 - 10 mm (92.5 % vs. 94.7 %, respectively; 95 %CI - 7.91 to 13.16). Rates of intraprocedural bleeding were similar between the two groups (CS-EMR 3.6 %, HS-EMR 1.2 %; P  = 0.30). No clinically significant postprocedural bleeding or perforation occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: CS-EMR appears to be a valuable modification of the standard cold snare technique, obviating the need to use diathermy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6 - 10 mm.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

1 ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP) as the preferred technique for removal of diminutive polyps (size ≤ 5 mm). This technique has high rates of complete resection, adequate tissue sampling for histology, and low complication rates. (High quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 2 ESGE suggests CSP for sessile polyps 6 - 9 mm in size because of its superior safety profile, although evidence comparing efficacy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is lacking. (Moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation.) 3 ESGE suggests HSP (with or without submucosal injection) for removal of sessile polyps 10 - 19 mm in size. In most cases deep thermal injury is a potential risk and thus submucosal injection prior to HSP should be considered. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 4 ESGE recommends HSP for pedunculated polyps. To prevent bleeding in pedunculated colorectal polyps with head ≥ 20 mm or a stalk ≥ 10 mm in diameter, ESGE recommends pretreatment of the stalk with injection of dilute adrenaline and/or mechanical hemostasis. (Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 5 ESGE recommends that the goals of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are to achieve a completely snare-resected lesion in the safest minimum number of pieces, with adequate margins and without need for adjunctive ablative techniques. (Low quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 6 ESGE recommends careful lesion assessment prior to EMR to identify features suggestive of poor outcome. Features associated with incomplete resection or recurrence include lesion size > 40 mm, ileocecal valve location, prior failed attempts at resection, and size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA) level 4. (Moderate quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 7 For intraprocedural bleeding, ESGE recommends endoscopic coagulation (snare-tip soft coagulation or coagulating forceps) or mechanical therapy, with or without the combined use of dilute adrenaline injection. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)An algorithm of polypectomy recommendations according to shape and size of polyps is given (Fig. 1).

Long-term recurrence of bile duct stones after endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with sphincterotomy: 4-year extended follow-up of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with biliary sphincterotomy (EPLBD + EBS) is safe and effective in patients with large common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, data on long-term outcomes after EPLBD + EBS remain limited. We sought to prospectively evaluate the long-term recurrence of CBD stones after EPLBD + EBS and to identify the associated factors. METHODS: We conducted an extended follow-up of a previous randomized trial (2009-2011) comparing the outcomes of 30- versus 60-s large balloon dilation. A total of 106 trial participants undergoing successful CBD stone clearance by EPLBD + EBS were prospectively followed up for up to 4 years (range 19-48 months). Various risk factors were analysed to assess predictors of long-term recurrence of stones. RESULTS: Recurrent CBD stones appeared in 8/106 (7.5 %) patients during a mean follow-up of 30.5 ± 5.5 months. The mean diameter of CBD was significantly higher in the recurrence versus non-recurrence group (2.0 ± 4.9 vs 1.6 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis revealed that CBD diameter was the only predictor significantly associated with the long-term recurrence of stones (odds ratio 1.2, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: EPLBD + EBS is associated with a low rate of long-term CBD stone recurrence. However, the risk is significantly higher in patients with a more dilated CBD.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

This Position Paper is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of iatrogenic perforation occurring during diagnostic or therapeutic digestive endoscopic procedures. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforation, including the definition of procedures that carry a high risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 In the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, ESGE recommends that the endoscopist reports: its size and location with a picture; endoscopic treatment that might have been possible; whether carbon dioxide or air was used for insufflation; and the standard report information. 3 ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be carefully evaluated and documented, possibly with a computed tomography (CT) scan, in order to prevent any diagnostic delay. 4 ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. A switch to carbon dioxide insufflation, the diversion of luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or tension pneumothorax should also be done. 5 After closure of an iatrogenic perforation using an endoscopic method, ESGE recommends that further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of the iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with sphincterotomy for difficult common bile duct stones ≤12 mm: a prospective study.

Background: Stone recurrence is a significant complication following endoscopic bile duct clearance. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) has shown satisfactory results in preventing recurrence of "large" common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, data on outcomes after EPLBD+EBS for CBDS ≤12 mm remain scarce. The present study prospectively evaluated the mid- and long-term efficacy of EPLBD+EBS for CBDS recurrence among this group of patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with CBDS ranging from 8-12 mm, treated with EPLBD+EBS from June 2018 through June 2020, were prospectively followed-up for at least 36 months. CBDS recurrence was defined as recurrent stones confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the follow-up period. Results: Overall, 72 patients (mean age: 67 years, 52.8% male) were included, of whom 22 (30.5%) had multiple (≥3) CBDS, 23 (31.9%) had a history of cholecystectomy, 13 (18.1%) had a periampullary diverticulum and 22 (30.5%) had a previous EBS. The mean CBD diameter was 11.6±1 mm, while a tapered duct was noted in 7 (9.7%). Post-procedural bleeding and cholangitis occurred in 1 and 2 cases respectively. No cases of perforation and post-ERCP pancreatitis were observed. During a mean follow up of 46.4±6.2 months (range 37-60), no mid-term recurrence was observed, whereas CBDS recurred in 2/72 (2.7%) in the long term. Conclusions: EPLBD+EBS in patients with CBDS ≤12 mm was associated with a very low rate of mid- and long-term CBDS recurrence. Our results need to be further investigated with randomized controlled trials.

Hybrid endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal polyps with a non-lifting sign: the Greek experience.

Background: Hybrid approaches combining endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with conventional techniques (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) have enabled the resection of difficult fibrotic colorectal adenomas exhibiting a "non-lifting" sign, and polyps in difficult positions. We present our cohort treated with either EMR+EFTR or ESD+EFTR as salvage hybrid endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal polyps not amenable to conventional techniques. Methods: Retrospective analysis included technical success, histological confirmation of margin-free resection, assessment of adverse events and follow up with histological assessment. All patients underwent follow-up endoscopy at least 6 and 12 months post-resection. Results: Fourteen patients underwent hybrid EFTR procedures (11 EMR+EFTR and 3 ESD+EFTR). Technical success was achieved in all cases where the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) was advanced to the site of the resection (100%). In 2 cases, the FTRD system could not be passed through the sigmoid colon because of severe chronic diverticulitis, subsequent fibrosis and stiffness. The mean lesion size in the EMR+EFTR group (41.7 mm; range 20-50 mm) was larger than the ESD+EFTR group (31.7 mm; range 30-35 mm). Six patients (42.9%) were histologically diagnosed with T1 carcinoma. The mean duration of hospitalization was 1.4 days. Follow-up endoscopy was available in all patients and no recurrence was observed with histological confirmation during a mean follow-up period of 15.4 months. Conclusion: Hybrid procedures appear to be safe and effective treatments for complex colorectal lesions not amenable to EMR, ESD or EFTR alone, because of the lesion size, positive non-lifting sign, and difficult positions.

Long-term adenoma recurrence and development of colorectal cancer following endoscopic mucosal resection in large non-pedunculated colonic polyps ≥4 cm.

OBJECTIVES: Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development. RESULTS: Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC . CONCLUSIONS: This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.