Underwater EMR without submucosal injection: Is less more?

Outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps-Insights from western India

INTRODUCTION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) represents an alternative to conventional EMR for resection of sessile colorectal polyps. We aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of uEMR for sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of endoscopy database was done for patients who underwent uEMR for sessile colorectal polyps more than 10 mm in size without any features of sub-mucosal invasion from two tertiary care centres in western India between January 2021 and June 2023. Exclusion criteria were other modes of endoscopic resection. Primary outcome was rate of en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were complete resection rate, adverse events and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

During the study period, 159 patients with 261 lesions met the study inclusion. Mean lesion size was 1.935 ± 0.71 cm with most lesion located in the rectum (75, 28.73%) followed by sigmoid colon (69, 26.43%). Most lesions had a Paris 0-Is morphology (192, 73.56%). Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) IIa pattern was seen on narrow band imaging (NBI) in 221 (84.67%) lesions. Complete resection was achieved in 98.46% lesions (257/261). En bloc resection was achieved in 91.82% (236/257) lesions. Complications were seen in 6.8%, all of which were managed endoscopically. Recurrence was seen in 3.1% of polyps on follow-up.

CONCLUSION

uEMR is a safe and efficacious technique for endoscopic resection for sessile colorectal polyps with high rates of en bloc resection for polyps more than 10 mm size.

Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21-30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set at p = 0.224.

RESULT

Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 ± 6) than in the ESD group (48 ± 29) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Japan Registry of Clinical Trial as jRCT1030210015 and jRCT1030210177.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

'Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection and marking' for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors to achieve R0 resection: a single-center case series

OBJECTIVES

To describe an endoscopic technique named 'underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) with submucosal injection and marking (UEMR-SIM)' and to evaluate the therapeutic characteristics of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) < 20 mm vis-a-vis classical EMR (CEMR) and UEMR techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 103 consecutive SNADET patients (103 lesions) who underwent CEMR, UEMR, or UEMR-SIM. The UEMR-SIM procedure included (1) marking and submucosal injection, (2) filling of the duodenal lumen with 0.9% saline, (3) snaring of the lesion, and (4) electrosurgical removal. The procedural outcomes were compared between the UEMR-SIM and other-procedure groups.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the UEMR-SIM group (100%) than in the CEMR group (76.8%) (p = 0.015) but was not statistically different between the UEMR-SIM and UEMR groups (88.0%) (p = 0.236). The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the UEMR-SIM group (90.9%) than in the UEMR group (48.0%) (p = 0.001) but was not statistically different between the UEMR-SIM and CEMR groups (76.8%) (p = 0.209).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that the proposed method, UEMR-SIM for SNADETs, is feasible to achieve a high R0 resection rate and a potentially low local recurrence rate.

Utility of Under-Gel Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Partial Submucosal Injection and Under-Gel Precutting Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Difficult Colorectal Polyp Cases

BACKGROUND

Here, we evaluated the utility of under-gel endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with partial submucosal injection (PI) and under-gel precutting EMR for difficult-to-treat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was conducted from April 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021, at St. Luke's International Hospital (Japan). We included all consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy and subsequent under-gel EMR with PI and under-gel precutting EMR. Baseline and clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Under-gel EMR with PI was performed in 6 patients, treating a total of seven lesions. In this group, 50% (3/6) were women (mean age = 59.2 years). The mean procedure time and specimen size were 5.1 min and 12.1 mm, respectively, achieving a 100% (7/7) en bloc resection rate. Under-gel precutting EMR was performed in 8 patients. In this group, 50% (4/8) were women (mean age = 66.1 years). The mean procedure time and specimen size were 22.6 min and 23.0 mm, respectively; en bloc resection rate was 62.5% (5/8). Regarding lesions over 20 mm in diameter, the en bloc resection rate was 50% (3/6). No complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PI is potentially useful for colorectal polyps where the distal end is not visible; when PI cannot be used, precutting EMR may constitute another troubleshooting method for difficult-to-treat colorectal polyps. The gel immersion method is also a viable option when the use of water causes rapid mixing of blood and residual stool, resulting in poor visibility.

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Current advances in management, treatment, and surveillance

Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (r-NENs) are considered among the most frequent digestive NENs, together with small bowel NENs. Their incidence has increased over the past few years, and this is probably due to the widespread use of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer and the advanced endoscopic procedures available nowadays. According to the current European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines, well-differentiated r-NENs smaller than 10 mm should be endoscopically removed in view of their low risk of local and distant invasion. R-NENs larger than 20 mm are candidates for surgical resection because of their high risk of distant spreading and the involvement of the muscularis propria. There is an area of uncertainty regarding tumors between 10 and 20 mm, in which the metastatic risk is intermediate and the endoscopic treatment can be challenging. Once removed, the indications for surveillance are scarce and poorly codified by international guidelines, therefore in this paper, a possible algorithm is proposed.

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection—cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device—while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees

Background and study aims  En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods  This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results  Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80-16.50; P  = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23-16.88; P  = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55-18.4; P  = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31-38.9; P  = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13-7.91; P  = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05-22.61; P  = 0.04). Conclusions  In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611).

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps: a comparative review and meta-analysis

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.

Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Room temperature water infusion during colonoscopy insertion induces rectosigmoid colon mucus production

BACKGROUND

Water filling during colonoscopy improves several colonoscopy outcomes. We evaluated an anecdotal observation that room temperature water filling during colonoscope insertion results in mucus production in the left colon, which may impair mucosal visualization during withdrawal.

METHODS

We performed 55 colonoscopies with either water or saline filling during insertion, and video recorded the examinations. Three blinded observers scored the amount of mucus visible on the video recordings.

RESULTS

29 patients had water filling and 26 patients had saline filling during insertion. Demographic features, procedure indications, volume of infused fluid, and insertion time to the cecum were similar in the two groups. All three blinded observers rated the mucus as greater after water filling than after saline (median 3 out of 5 vs. 1 out of 5; P < 0.001), with a kappa value for interobserver agreement of 0.364 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Room temperature water filling is associated with mucus production by the rectosigmoid colon, requiring additional cleansing during withdrawal.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps has been reported to have good outcomes in recent studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of UEMR to conventional EMR (CEMR). Methods  A comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) was performed to identify studies that reported outcome of UEMR and CEMR for colorectal lesions. Outcomes assessed included incomplete resection, rate of recurrence, en bloc resection, adverse events (AEs) for UEMR and CEMR. Results  A total of 1,651 patients with 1,704 polyps were included from nine studies. There was a significantly lower rate of incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.19 (95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.78, P  = 0.02) and polyp recurrence (OR: 0.41, 95 % CI, 0.24-0.72, P  = 0.002) after UEMR. Compared to CEMR, rates overall complications (relative risk [RR]: 0.66 (95 % CI, 0.48-0.90) ( P  = 0.008), and intra-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.59, 95 % CI, 0.41-0.84, P  = 0.004) were significantly lower with UEMR. The recurrence rate was also lower for large non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 10 mm (OR 0.24, 95 % CI, 0.10-0.57, P  = 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm (OR 0.14, 95 % CI, 0.02-0.72, P  = 0.01). The rates of en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were similar in both groups ( P  > 0.05). Conclusions  In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that UEMR is more effective and safer than CEMR with lower rates of recurrence and AEs. UEMR use should be encouraged over CEMR.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video)

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.).

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) for large colorectal polyps: A community-based series

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is an appealing therapy for large colorectal polyps. However, this technique is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating UEMR in community settings.

METHODS

The study comprised patients undergoing UEMR of large (≥20 mm) sessile colorectal lesions at a community-based center. Residual neoplasia was assessed via follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 264 lesions (diameter 38 ± 18 mm; range 20-110 mm) 99% were successfully resected with UEMR. Two lesions involving the cecum/IC valve required multiple sessions. There were no cases of perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1.6%, all managed conservatively. Residual neoplasia was present in 5.7% and was amenable to UEMR.

CONCLUSION

This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions. The results support UEMR as first-line therapy for these lesions.

SUMMARY

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is a recently developed method that has advantages over conventional EMR for treatment of large colorectal lesions. However, UEMR is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating this technique in everyday practice. This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions.

Present Status of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors

Prediction of histology by endoscopic examination is important in the clinical management of non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (NADETs), including adenoma and adenocarcinoma. The use of a simple scoring system based on the findings of white-light endoscopy or magnified endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is useful to differentiate between Vienna category 3 (C3) and C4/5 lesions. Less invasive endoscopic resection procedures, such as cold snare polypectomy, are quick to perform and convenient for small (<10 mm) C3 lesions. Neoplasms with higher grade histology, such as C4/5 lesions, should be treated by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or surgery. Although EMR often requires piecemeal resection, the complication rate is acceptable. Excellent complete resection rates could be achieved by ESD; however, it remains a challenging method considering the high risk of complications. Shielding or closure of the ulcer after ESD is effective at decreasing the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery is an ideal treatment with a high rate of en bloc resection and a low rate of complications, although it is limited to high-volume centers. Patients with NADETs could benefit from a multidisciplinary approach to stratify the optimal treatment based on endoscopic diagnoses.