Literature DB >> 29370584

The size, morphology, site, and access score predicts critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon.

Mayenaaz Sidhu1, David J Tate1,2, Lobke Desomer1, Gregor Brown3,4, Luke F Hourigan5,6, Eric Y T Lee1, Alan Moss7,8, Spiro Raftopoulos9, Rajvinder Singh10, Stephen J Williams1, Simon Zanati3,7, Nicholas Burgess1, Michael J Bourke1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The SMSA (size, morphology, site, access) polyp scoring system is a method of stratifying the difficulty of polypectomy through assessment of four domains. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of SMSA to predict critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).
METHODS: We retrospectively applied SMSA to a prospectively collected multicenter database of large colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) ≥ 20 mm referred for EMR. Standard inject-and-resect EMR procedures were performed. The primary end points were correlation of SMSA level with technical success, adverse events, and endoscopic recurrence.
RESULTS: 2675 lesions in 2675 patients (52.6 % male) underwent EMR. Failed single-session EMR occurred in 124 LSLs (4.6 %) and was predicted by the SMSA score (P < 0.001). Intraprocedural and clinically significant postendoscopic bleeding was significantly less common for SMSA 2 LSLs (odds ratio [OR] 0.36, P < 0.001 and OR 0.23, P < 0.01) and SMSA 3 LSLs (OR 0.41, P  < 0.001 and OR 0.60, P = 0.05) compared with SMSA 4 lesions. Similarly, endoscopic recurrence at first surveillance was less likely among SMSA 2 (OR 0.19, P < 0.001) and SMSA 3 (OR 0.33, P < 0.001) lesions compared with SMSA 4 lesions. This also extended to second surveillance among SMSA 4 LSLs.
CONCLUSION: SMSA is a simple, readily applicable, clinical score that identifies a subgroup of patients who are at increased risk of failed EMR, adverse events, and adenoma recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy. This information may be useful for improving informed consent, planning endoscopy lists, and developing quality control measures for practitioners of EMR, with potential implications for EMR benchmarking and training. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29370584     DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  15 in total

1.  Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital.

Authors:  A C Currie; H Merriman; S Nadia Shah Gilani; P Mackenzie; M R McFall; M K Baig
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Selection of EMR and ESD for Laterally Spreading Lesions of the Colon.

Authors:  Ji Young Bang; Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-12

3.  Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Heiko Pohl; Ian S Grimm; Matthew T Moyer; Muhammad K Hasan; Douglas Pleskow; B Joseph Elmunzer; Mouen A Khashab; Omid Sanaei; Firas H Al-Kawas; Stuart R Gordon; Abraham Mathew; John M Levenick; Harry R Aslanian; Fadi Antaki; Daniel von Renteln; Seth D Crockett; Amit Rastogi; Jeffrey A Gill; Ryan J Law; Pooja A Elias; Maria Pellise; Michael B Wallace; Todd A Mackenzie; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps.

Authors:  Yonatan J Hillman; Bari S Hillman; Divyesh V Sejpal; Calvin Lee; Larry S Miller; Petros C Benias; Arvind J Trindade
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  UEG Week 2020 Poster Presentations.

Authors: 
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists.

Authors:  Sushrut Sujan Thiruvengadam; Brian M Fung; Monique T Barakat; James H Tabibian
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2022-03

Review 7.  Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection.

Authors:  Arthur Hoffman; Raja Atreya; Timo Rath; Markus Ferdinand Neurath
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2021-03-31

8.  Blood group O is a risk factor for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.

Authors:  Hiroto Furuhashi; Akira Dobashi; Naoto Tamai; Nana Shimamoto; Masakuni Kobayashi; Shingo Ono; Yuko Hara; Hiroaki Matsui; Shunsuke Kamba; Hideka Horiuchi; Akio Koizumi; Tomohiko R Ohya; Masayuki Kato; Keiichi Ikeda; Hiroshi Arakawa; Kazuki Sumiyama
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study.

Authors:  Hsu-Chih Chien; Noriya Uedo; Ping-Hsin Hsieh
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-10-31

10.  Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy.

Authors:  Souhaylah Abdalla; Hélène Meillat; Claire Fillol; Kevin Zuber; Gilles Manceau; Vincent Dubray; Laura Beyer-Berjot; Jérémie H Lefevre; Marie Selvy; Stéphane Benoist; Renato Micelli Lupinacci
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2021 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.