Keith Siau1,2, Sauid Ishaq3,4, Sergio Cadoni5, Toshio Kuwai6, Abdulkani Yusuf7, Noriko Suzuki7. 1. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK. sauid.ishaq@dgh.nhs.uk. 4. Department of Medicine, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, B5 5JU, UK. sauid.ishaq@dgh.nhs.uk. 5. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, CTO Hospital, Iglesias, Italy. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization, Kure Medical Centre and Chugoku Cancer Centre, Kure, Japan. 7. Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging strategy for the management of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for clinically significant (≥ 10 mm) colorectal polyps. METHODS: We performed a prospective dual-centre study of polyps ≥ 10 mm undergoing UEMR between June 2014 and March 2017. Outcomes measured comprised: (1) completeness of resection at index UEMR, (2) intraprocedural and 30-day complications, (3) rates and predictors of submucosal lift, en bloc resection, polyp/adenoma recurrence and (4) pain score. Endoscopy records were correlated with histology. RESULTS: 85 patients underwent UEMR of 97 polyps. Resection was endoscopically complete at index UEMR in 97.9%. The median pain score was 0 (no pain). Submucosal lift was required in 29.9% and correlated with polyp size ≥ 30 mm (p = 0.03) and clip placement (p = 0.004). En bloc resection was achieved in 45.4%, and inversely correlated with polyp size ≥ 20 mm (p < 0.001). 30-day complications (4.1%) were minor and consisted of intraprocedural bleeding (n = 2) and delayed bleeding (n = 2). 60.8% attended endoscopy post-UEMR after a median interval of 6 months, with 20.3% polyp and 13.6% adenoma recurrence. Polyp recurrence was associated with piecemeal resection (p = 0.04), recurrent polyp (p = 0.02), female sex (p = 0.01) and poor access (p = 0.005). Predictors for adenoma recurrence included female gender (p = 0.01) and difficult access (p < 0.001). Recurrence rates did not differ with polyp size, site, morphology, dysplasia status, submucosal injection, patient age, or study centre. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is an effective, safe and well tolerated option for significant colorectal polyps. Piecemeal resection, recurrent polyp, female gender, and difficult access are predictors of post-UEMR polyp recurrence.
BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging strategy for the management of colorectal polyps. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for clinically significant (≥ 10 mm) colorectal polyps. METHODS: We performed a prospective dual-centre study of polyps ≥ 10 mm undergoing UEMR between June 2014 and March 2017. Outcomes measured comprised: (1) completeness of resection at index UEMR, (2) intraprocedural and 30-day complications, (3) rates and predictors of submucosal lift, en bloc resection, polyp/adenoma recurrence and (4) pain score. Endoscopy records were correlated with histology. RESULTS: 85 patients underwent UEMR of 97 polyps. Resection was endoscopically complete at index UEMR in 97.9%. The median pain score was 0 (no pain). Submucosal lift was required in 29.9% and correlated with polyp size ≥ 30 mm (p = 0.03) and clip placement (p = 0.004). En bloc resection was achieved in 45.4%, and inversely correlated with polyp size ≥ 20 mm (p < 0.001). 30-day complications (4.1%) were minor and consisted of intraprocedural bleeding (n = 2) and delayed bleeding (n = 2). 60.8% attended endoscopy post-UEMR after a median interval of 6 months, with 20.3% polyp and 13.6% adenoma recurrence. Polyp recurrence was associated with piecemeal resection (p = 0.04), recurrent polyp (p = 0.02), female sex (p = 0.01) and poor access (p = 0.005). Predictors for adenoma recurrence included female gender (p = 0.01) and difficult access (p < 0.001). Recurrence rates did not differ with polyp size, site, morphology, dysplasia status, submucosal injection, patient age, or study centre. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is an effective, safe and well tolerated option for significant colorectal polyps. Piecemeal resection, recurrent polyp, female gender, and difficult access are predictors of post-UEMR polyp recurrence.
Authors: C Hassan; A Repici; P Sharma; L Correale; A Zullo; M Bretthauer; C Senore; C Spada; Cristina Bellisario; P Bhandari; D K Rex Journal: Gut Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: S Gupta; D Miskovic; P Bhandari; S Dolwani; B McKaig; R Pullan; B Rembacken; S Riley; M D Rutter; N Suzuki; Z Tsiamoulos; R Valori; M E Vance; O D Faiz; B P Saunders; S Thomas-Gibson Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2013-06-01
Authors: Nicholas G Burgess; Andrew J Metz; Stephen J Williams; Rajvinder Singh; William Tam; Luke F Hourigan; Simon A Zanati; Gregor J Brown; Rebecca Sonson; Michael J Bourke Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Eduardo Albéniz; María Fraile; Berta Ibáñez; Pedro Alonso-Aguirre; David Martínez-Ares; Santiago Soto; Carla Jerusalén Gargallo; Felipe Ramos Zabala; Marco Antonio Álvarez; Joaquín Rodríguez-Sánchez; Fernando Múgica; Óscar Nogales; Alberto Herreros de Tejada; Eduardo Redondo; Noel Pin; Helena León-Brito; Remedios Pardeiro; Leopoldo López-Roses; Manuel Rodríguez-Téllez; Alejandra Jiménez; Felipe Martínez-Alcalá; Orlando García; Joaquín de la Peña; Akiko Ono; Fernando Alberca de Las Parras; María Pellisé; Liseth Rivero; Esteban Saperas; Francisco Pérez-Roldán; Antonio Pueyo Royo; Javier Eguaras Ros; Alba Zúñiga Ripa; Mar Concepción-Martín; Patricia Huelin-Álvarez; Juan Colán-Hernández; Joaquín Cubiella; David Remedios; Xavier Bessa I Caserras; Bartolomé López-Viedma; Julyssa Cobian; Mariano González-Haba; José Santiago; Juan Gabriel Martínez-Cara; Eduardo Valdivielso; Carlos Guarner-Argente Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Y Backes; L M G Moons; J D van Bergeijk; L Berk; F Ter Borg; P C J Ter Borg; S G Elias; J M J Geesing; J N Groen; M Hadithi; J C H Hardwick; M Kerkhof; M J J Mangen; J W A Straathof; R Schröder; M P Schwartz; B W M Spanier; W H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel; F H J Wolfhagen; A D Koch Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: A W Yen; A Amato; S Cadoni; S Friedland; Y H Hsieh; J W Leung; M Liggi; J Sul; F W Leung Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 4.584