Literature DB >> 25708759

Attempted underwater en bloc resection for large (2-4 cm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors (with video).

Kenneth F Binmoeller1, Christopher M Hamerski1, Janak N Shah1, Yasser M Bhat1, Steven D Kane1, Richard Garcia-Kennedy2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of attempted underwater en bloc resection (UEBR) of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).
DESIGN: Prospective, observational study.
SETTING: Tertiary academic referral center. PATIENTS: Fifty patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: Standardized UEBR technique involving attempted en bloc resection without submucosal injection by using a large 33-mm snare. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Complete endoscopic en bloc resection, histologic complete resection, procedure time, adverse events, and follow-up data.
RESULTS: Over 13 months, UEBR was attempted in 50 patients (median age, 68 years) with 53 LSTs 2 to 4 cm in size. The median LST size was 30 mm (range 20-40 mm). The median procedure and resection times were 38 minutes (range 17-87 minutes) and 3 minutes (range 1-32 minutes), respectively. Complete endoscopic en bloc resection with the 33-mm snare was successful in 29 of 53 lesions (55%). Of these, histology showed neoplasia-free margins in 79%. Final histology was tubular adenoma (n = 26), sessile serrated adenoma (n = 10), tubulovillous adenoma (n = 14), villous adenoma (n = 2), and intramucosal carcinoma (n = 1). Adverse events (4%) were delayed bleeding in 1 and abdominal pain in 1 patient each. There were no perforations. Forty patients with a total of 43 adenomas had follow-up colonoscopy with biopsies of the resection site after a median of 31 weeks (range 7-71 weeks) after resection. Residual adenoma was found in 2 of 43 (5%). LIMITATIONS: Single-center, limited follow-up.
CONCLUSION: On an intention-to-treat basis, complete endoscopic en bloc resection was achieved in 55% of lesions with complete histologic resection verified in 79% of the en bloc specimens. UEBR without submucosal injection appears safe. Refinements are needed to improve UEBR success rates.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25708759     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  20 in total

1.  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Robert J Schenck; Darius A Jahann; James T Patrie; Edward B Stelow; Dawn G Cox; Dushant S Uppal; Bryan G Sauer; Vanessa M Shami; Daniel S Strand; Andrew Y Wang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Update on Difficult Polypectomy Techniques.

Authors:  Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Heiko Pohl; Yamile Haito-Chavez; Mouen A Khashab
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-01

3.  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection: The third way for en bloc resection of colonic lesions?

Authors:  Arnaldo Amato; Franco Radaelli; Giancarlo Spinzi
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Keith Siau; Sauid Ishaq; Sergio Cadoni; Toshio Kuwai; Abdulkani Yusuf; Noriko Suzuki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).

Authors:  Andrew W Yen; Joseph W Leung; Machelle D Wilson; Felix W Leung
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rajat Garg; Amandeep Singh; Manik Aggarwal; Jaideep Bhalla; Babu P Mohan; Carol Burke; Tarun Rustagi; Prabhleen Chahal
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2021-04-29

Review 7.  Effectiveness and safety of underwater techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Authors:  Marcello Maida; Sandro Sferrazza; Alberto Murino; Andrea Lisotti; Nikolaos Lazaridis; Alessandro Vitello; Pietro Fusaroli; Giovanni de Pretis; Emanuele Sinagra
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of adenomas and colorectal serrated lesions: a prospective clinical study.

Authors:  Pedro Bothrel Nogueira; Walton Albuquerque; Ricardo Castejon Nascimento; Bruna Santos Marianelli; Frederico Fonseca Campos; Rodrigo Albuquerque Carreiro; Renata Figueiredo Rocha; Roberto Motta Pereira; Vitor Nunes Arantes
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-03

Review 9.  Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: A Western Colonoscopist's View.

Authors:  Ian Holmes; Shai Friedland
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2016-08-26

10.  Underwater endoscopic colorectal polyp resection: Feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Authors:  Sergio Cadoni; Mauro Liggi; Paolo Gallittu; Donatella Mura; Lorenzo Fuccio; Malcolm Koo; Sauid Ishaq
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 4.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.