TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps
T2 - a comparative review and meta-analysis
AU - Chandan, Saurabh
AU - Khan, Shahab R.
AU - Kumar, Anand
AU - Mohan, Babu P.
AU - Ramai, Daryl
AU - Kassab, Lena L.
AU - Draganov, Peter V.
AU - Othman, Mohamed O.
AU - Kochhar, Gursimran S.
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to Dana Gerberi, MLIS, Librarian, Mayo Clinic Libraries, for help with the systematic literature search. DISCLOSURE: Dr Othman has acted as a consultant for Abbvie, BSC, Olympus, Lumedni; and ConMed. Dr Draganov has acted as a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Cook, Fujifilm, Medtronic, Merit, Lumendi, Steris, and Microtech. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background and Aims: Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques. Methods: Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques. Results: Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles. Conclusions: Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.
AB - Background and Aims: Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques. Methods: Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques. Results: Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles. Conclusions: Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103717625&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85103717625&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.034
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.034
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33385463
AN - SCOPUS:85103717625
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 94
SP - 471-482.e9
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 3
ER -