Alyssa Y Choi1, Zain Moosvi1, Sagar Shah2, Mary Kathryn Roccato1, Andrew Y Wang3, Christopher M Hamerski4, Jason B Samarasena1. 1. H. H. Chao Comprehensive Digestive Disease Center, University of California, Department of Medicine, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California, USA. 2. University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 4. Interventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included: 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P < .001; I2 = 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps ≥20 mm (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14; P = .02; I2 = 44%) but not in polyps <20 mm (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, .65-1.76; P = .80; I2 = 27%), and with a significant reduction in the rate of recurrence (OR, .30; 95% CI, .16-.57; P = .0002; I2 = 0%), again driven by improvements in polyps ≥20 mm. There was no significant difference in postprocedure bleeding (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, .57-2.17; P = .76; I2 = 0%) or perforation (OR, .72; 95% CI, .19-2.83; P = .64; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that UEMR is a safe and efficacious alternative to CEMR. With appropriate training, UEMR may be strongly considered as a first-line option for resection of colorectal polyps.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included: 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P < .001; I2 = 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps ≥20 mm (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14; P = .02; I2 = 44%) but not in polyps <20 mm (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, .65-1.76; P = .80; I2 = 27%), and with a significant reduction in the rate of recurrence (OR, .30; 95% CI, .16-.57; P = .0002; I2 = 0%), again driven by improvements in polyps ≥20 mm. There was no significant difference in postprocedure bleeding (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, .57-2.17; P = .76; I2 = 0%) or perforation (OR, .72; 95% CI, .19-2.83; P = .64; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that UEMR is a safe and efficacious alternative to CEMR. With appropriate training, UEMR may be strongly considered as a first-line option for resection of colorectal polyps.
Authors: Oliver Bendall; Joel James; Katarzyna M Pawlak; Sauid Ishaq; J Andy Tau; Noriko Suzuki; Steven Bollipo; Keith Siau Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2021-12-24
Authors: Paolo Cecinato; Matteo Lucarini; Chiara Campanale; Francesco Azzolini; Fabio Bassi; Romano Sassatelli Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-09-14
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