Endoscopic treatment of scarred polyps with a non-thermal device (Endorotor): A review of the literature .

Endoscopic resection (ER) of colorectal polyps has become a daily practice in most endoscopic units providing a colorectal cancer screening program and requires the availability of local experts and high-end endoscopic devices. ER procedures have evolved over the past few years from endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to more advanced techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and endo-scopic full-thickness resection. Complete resection and disease eradication are the ultimate goals of ER-based techniques, and novel devices have been developed to achieve these goals. The EndoRotor® Endoscopic Powered Resection System (Interscope Medical, Inc., Northbridge, Massachusetts, United States) is one such device. The EndoRotor is a powered resection tool for the removal of alimentary tract mucosa, including post-EMR persistent lesions with scarring, and has both CE Mark and FDA clearance. This review covers available published evidence documenting the usefulness of EndoRotor for the management of recurrent colorectal polyps.

Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) appears to be a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. To assess the effectiveness and safety of EMR for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a thorough search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies reporting on EMR of SSPs ≥ 10 mm, up until December 2023. Our primary endpoints of interest were rates of technical success, residual SSPs, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Our search identified 426 articles, of which 14 studies with 2262 SSPs were included for analysis. The rates of technical success, AEs, and residual SSPs were 100%, 2.0%, and 3.1%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the technical success rates were the same for polyps 10-19 and 20 mm, and en-bloc and piecemeal resection. Residual SSPs rates were similar in en-bloc and piecemeal resection, but much lower in cold EMR (1.0% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.034). AEs rates were reduced in cold EMR compared to hot EMR (0% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.168), in polyps 10-19 mm compared to 20 mm (0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.255), and in piecemeal resection compared to en-bloc (0% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.169). CONCLUSIONS: EMR is an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm. The therapeutic effect of cold EMR is superior to that of hot EMR, with a lower incidence of adverse effects. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023388959.

Recurrence and Carcinogenetic Rates of Colorectal Polyps.

AIM: to determin the recurrence rate of benign recto-colonic polyps in a 5-year interval, and compare the development rate of intrapolypoid carcinomatous lesions in polypectomized versus nonpolypectomized subjects. MATERIAL AND METHOD: a group of 77 patients diagnosed with recto-colonic polypoid lesions during the period 2014-2019 underwent colonoscopy at the time of study initiation and then annually during a five-year interval. Results: The recurrence rate of polyps increased annually from 5 to 12.5%; the highest rate was noted in the last two years. The five-year cumulative risk of neoplastic lesions was 73% in patients without polypectomy and 20% among those with endoscopic resection (p 0.05). Comparing the recurrence rate of benign lesions (60%) in patients without neoplastic findings with the recurrence rate of adenomas in patients with benign lesions (40%), a higher risk of recurrence was found in the first category, and seemed to be influenced by the personal history of pre-existing adenomatous lesions. CONCLUSION: an increased risk of colorectal polyps recurrence was reported during five year follow up; moreover, during the first three years an increased risk of malignant transformation was observed among cases in which endoscopic resection was not feasible when compared to those in which complete excision was feasible.

HOT VERSUS COLD SNARE FOR COLORECTAL POLYPECTOMIES SIZED UP TO 10MM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events. METHODS: A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding. CONCLUSION: Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

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.

Updates on the Prevention and Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding in the Colon.

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.

Recurrences of advanced sessile and lateral spreading colorectal adenoma after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) thermal ablation versus no adjuvant therapy (RESPECT): a protocol of an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, large benign lateral spreading lesions (LSLs) and sessile polyps in the colorectum are mostly resected by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). A major drawback of EMR is the polyp recurrence rate of up to 20%. Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) is considered an effective technique to reduce recurrence rates. However, clinical trials on STSC have mainly been conducted in expert referral centers. In these studies, polyp recurrence was assessed optically, and additional adjunctive techniques were excluded. In the current trial, we will evaluate the efficacy and safety of STSC in daily practice, by allowing adjunctive techniques during EMR and the use of both optical and histological polyp recurrence to assess recurrences during follow-up. METHODS: The RESPECT study is a multicenter, parallel-group, international single blinded randomized controlled superiority trial performed in the Netherlands and Germany. A total of 306 patients undergoing piecemeal EMR for LSLs or sessile colorectal polyps sized 20-60 mm will be randomized during the procedure after endoscopic complete polyp resection to the intervention or control group. Post-EMR defects allocated to the intervention group will be treated with thermal ablation with STSC of the entire resection margin. Primary outcome will be polyp recurrence by optical and histological confirmation at the first surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include technical success and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The RESPECT study will evaluate if STSC is effective in reducing recurrence rates after piecemeal EMR of large colorectal lesions in daily clinical practice performed by expert and non-expert endoscopists. Moreover, endoscopists will be allowed to use adjunctive techniques to remove remaining adenomatous tissue during the procedure. Finally, adenomatous polyp recurrence during follow-up will be defined by histologic identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05121805. Registered on 16 November 2021. Start recruitment: 17 March 2022. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 April 2025.

Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10 mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10 mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Cold Snare Polypectomy in Small (<10 mm) Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic removal techniques for colorectal polyps include cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Although HSP is recommended for pedunculated polyps (PPs) larger than 10 mm, data regarding use of CSP for PPs <10 mm continues to emerge. We aimed to investigate outcomes of these techniques in small (<10 mm) pedunculated colorectal polyps. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched till June 2022 to identify studies involving the removal of small PPs with CSP and HSP. Random effects model was used to calculate outcomes and 95% CI. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were immediate and delayed bleeding with CSP and HSP as well as prophylactic and post resection clip placement. RESULTS: Six studies including 1025 patients (1111 polyps with a mean size 4 to 8.5 mm) were analyzed. 116 and 995 polyps were removed with HSP and CSP, respectively. The overall pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection with CSP was 99.7% (CI 99.1-99.9; I2 0%). Pooled immediate and delayed bleeding after CSP was 49.8% (CI 46.8-52.91; I2 98%) and 0% (CI 0.00-0.00; I2 0%), respectively. Delayed bleeding was higher with HSP, relative risk 0.05 (CI 0.01-0.43; I2 0%), P =0.006, whereas immediate bleeding was higher with CSP, relative risk 7.89 (CI 4.36-14.29; I2 0%), P <0.00001. Pooled rates of prophylactic clip placement and post-procedure clip placement (to control immediate bleeding) were 55.3% and 47.2%, respectively. Finally, right colon polyp location significantly correlated with frequency of immediate bleeding. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that CSP is safe and effective for resection of small PPs.

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Risk factors of unintentional piecemeal resection in endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm.

This study aimed to investigate the lesion and endoscopist factors associated with unintentional endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (uniEPMR) of colorectal lesions ≥ 10 mm. uniEPMR was defined from the medical record as anything other than a preoperatively planned EPMR. Factors leading to uniEPMR were identified by retrospective univariate and multivariate analyses of lesions ≥ 10 mm (adenoma including sessile serrated lesion and carcinoma) that were treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) at three hospitals. Additionally, a questionnaire survey was conducted to determine the number of cases treated by each endoscopist. A learning curve (LC) was created for each lesion size based on the number of experienced cases and the percentage of uniEPMR. Of 2557 lesions, 327 lesions underwent uniEPMR. The recurrence rate of uniEPMR was 2.8%. Multivariate analysis showed that lesion diameter ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio 11.83, 95% confidence interval 6.80-20.60, p < 0.0001) was the most associated risk factor leading to uniEPMR. In the LC analysis, the proportion of uniEPMR decreased for lesion sizes of 10-19 mm until 160 cases. The proportion of uniEPMR decreased with the number of experienced cases in the 20-29 mm range, while there was no correlation between the number of experienced cases and the proportion of uniEPMR ≥ 30 mm. These results suggest that 160 cases seem to be the minimum number of cases needed to be proficient in en bloc EMR. Additionally, while lesion sizes of 10-29 mm are considered suitable for EMR, lesion sizes ≥ 30 mm are not applicable for en bloc EMR from the perspective of both lesion and endoscopist factors.

Hybrid resection versus conventional resection for laterally spreading lesions of the papilla.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although conventional hot snare resection (CR) of laterally spreading lesions of the major papilla (LSL-Ps) is effective, it can be associated with delayed bleeding in upward of 25% of cases. Given the excellent safety profile of cold snare polypectomy in the colorectum, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel hybrid resection (HR) technique for LSL-P management, consisting of hot snare papillectomy plus cold snare resection of the laterally spreading component. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients underwent HR in a tertiary referral center over 60 months until December 2022. This cohort was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent CR at the same institution over 120 months until August 2017. The primary outcomes were recurrence and bleeding. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent HR (14 female; mean age 65.2 ± 12.2 years). Median lesion size was 30 mm (interquartile range, 25.0-47.5 mm). Recurrent or residual adenoma (RRA) was greater with HR (58.8% [n = 10] vs 29.8% [n = 14]; P = .034). The odds ratio for recurrence was 3.6 times (95% CI, 1.2-11.0) higher with HR (P = .027). RRA was multifocal in 4 (40%) and had a composite RRA volume >10 mm in 7 (70%). The median number of procedures required to treat RRA was higher with HR (4 vs 1, P = .002). There was no difference between CR and HR for intraprocedural bleeding (41.1% [n = 23] vs 25% [n = 5]; P = .587) or delayed bleeding (25.0% vs 10.0%, P = .211). There were no perforations. CONCLUSIONS: The novel HR technique for LSL-P management is associated with a high rate of RRA that is recalcitrant to treatment, without mitigating the risk of intraprocedural or delayed bleeding. Therefore, CR should remain the mainstay management option for treating patients with an LSL-P. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306603.).