BACKGROUND AND AIM: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has been attracting much attention as treatment for patients with nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (NADETs). We aim to compare treatment outcomes, including submucosal resectability, between patients undergoing U-EMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) for NADET. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 38 patients with NADET treated by U-EMR or C-EMR. In the resected specimens, we measured the horizontal length, the vertical distance from the muscularis mucosa to the margin at the deepest site, and the overall submucosal area. The submucosal index (SMI) was defined as the overall submucosal area divided by the largest horizontal length. These values and other treatment outcomes were compared between NADETs resected by U-EMR and C-EMR. RESULTS: The median size of lesions was 7 mm with a range of 3-13 mm. Although the incidence of adverse events and the rates of en bloc and R0 resection were not different in the two groups, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the U-EMR group (11 min vs 13 min; P = 0.045). The median submucosal depth at the deepest site (1.22 mm vs 1.08 mm; P = 0.38) and the median SMI (0.44 vs 0.41; P = 0.42) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The resectability between NADETs treated by U-EMR and C-EMR was comparable. These results, together with the shorter procedure time required for U-EMR, suggest that U-EMR may have the potential to be the first choice for small to medium-sized NADET.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has been attracting much attention as treatment for patients with nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (NADETs). We aim to compare treatment outcomes, including submucosal resectability, between patients undergoing U-EMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) for NADET. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 38 patients with NADET treated by U-EMR or C-EMR. In the resected specimens, we measured the horizontal length, the vertical distance from the muscularis mucosa to the margin at the deepest site, and the overall submucosal area. The submucosal index (SMI) was defined as the overall submucosal area divided by the largest horizontal length. These values and other treatment outcomes were compared between NADETs resected by U-EMR and C-EMR. RESULTS: The median size of lesions was 7 mm with a range of 3-13 mm. Although the incidence of adverse events and the rates of en bloc and R0 resection were not different in the two groups, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the U-EMR group (11 min vs 13 min; P = 0.045). The median submucosal depth at the deepest site (1.22 mm vs 1.08 mm; P = 0.38) and the median SMI (0.44 vs 0.41; P = 0.42) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The resectability between NADETs treated by U-EMR and C-EMR was comparable. These results, together with the shorter procedure time required for U-EMR, suggest that U-EMR may have the potential to be the first choice for small to medium-sized NADET.