Andrew W Yen1, Joseph W Leung1, Machelle D Wilson2, Felix W Leung3. 1. Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VA Northern California Health Care System, Division of Gastroenterology, Mather, California, USA; University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA. 2. Clinical and Translational Science Center, Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA. 3. Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Division of Gastroenterology, North Hills, California, USA; David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection. RESULTS:Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.). Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.). Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: M J O'Brien; S J Winawer; A G Zauber; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; B Diaz; G R Dickersin; S Ewing; S Geller; D Kasimian Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1990-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Chantal M C le Clercq; Mariëlle W E Bouwens; Eveline J A Rondagh; C Minke Bakker; Eric T P Keulen; Rogier J de Ridder; Bjorn Winkens; Ad A M Masclee; Silvia Sanduleanu Journal: Gut Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 10.864
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
Authors: Darren Jun Hao Tan; Cheng Han Ng; Xiong Chang Lim; Wen Hui Lim; Linus Zhen Han Yuen; Jin Hean Koh; Kameswara Rishi Yeshayahu Nistala; Khek-Yu Ho; Choon Seng Chong; Mark D Muthiah Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-01-14