BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C) is an established method for curative resection of early neoplastic lesions; prelooping of the snare may however be difficult and lead to imprecise resection. We therefore compared two modifications of the conventional technique using outer snare placement with an accessory channel in a prospective, nonrandomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2004 and March 2007, 54 patients (men 37, women 17; mean age 71 years) underwent EMR. One method involved an internally retained snare (IRS) cap, with a fixed prelooped snare inside the cap; the other method used an externally guided snare (EGS) cap with the snare guided over an oblique cap. The main outcome parameters were specimen size, en bloc resection, and complications. RESULTS: There was no difference between use of the IRS and EGS cap methods in relation to specimen size (27.6 vs. 27.1 mm), or rates of en bloc resection (88.9 % vs. 83.3 %); only one perforation occurred, and this was in the EGS group. CONCLUSION: Both techniques appeared to provide similar efficacy, the inner rim of the IRS cap stabilizes aspiration of the lesion compared with the EGS cap that does not have it.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C) is an established method for curative resection of early neoplastic lesions; prelooping of the snare may however be difficult and lead to imprecise resection. We therefore compared two modifications of the conventional technique using outer snare placement with an accessory channel in a prospective, nonrandomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between October 2004 and March 2007, 54 patients (men 37, women 17; mean age 71 years) underwent EMR. One method involved an internally retained snare (IRS) cap, with a fixed prelooped snare inside the cap; the other method used an externally guided snare (EGS) cap with the snare guided over an oblique cap. The main outcome parameters were specimen size, en bloc resection, and complications. RESULTS: There was no difference between use of the IRS and EGS cap methods in relation to specimen size (27.6 vs. 27.1 mm), or rates of en bloc resection (88.9 % vs. 83.3 %); only one perforation occurred, and this was in the EGS group. CONCLUSION: Both techniques appeared to provide similar efficacy, the inner rim of the IRS cap stabilizes aspiration of the lesion compared with the EGS cap that does not have it.