Comparison of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions

Comparing underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large laterally spreading tumor: a randomized controlled trial (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging despite its usefulness. Underwater ESD (UESD) provides better traction and a clearer view of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (CESD). This study compared the efficiency of UESD and CESD for large (20-50 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).

METHODS

Preplanned sample size was calculated from our previous experience. As a result, 28 patients were required for the UESD group and CESD group each. The primary outcome was total procedure time; the secondary outcome was dissection speed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and a total of 28 patients were assigned to each group. The mean LST size was 31.6 mm and 31.3 mm in the UESD and CESD groups, respectively. Fibrosis was observed in 67.9% and 60.7% of patients in the UESD and CESD groups. Total procedure time (mean ± standard deviation) for the UESD group was significantly shorter than that for the CESD group (49.5 ± 20.3 minutes vs 75.7 ± 36.1 minutes; mean difference, -26.2 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -42.0 to -10.5 minutes). Dissection speed of the UESD group was significantly faster than that of the CESD group (21.9 ± 6.9 mm2/min vs 15.2 ± 7.3 mm2/min; mean difference, 6.7 mm2/min; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 10.4 mm2/min). There was no difference between groups in the R0 resection rate or en bloc resection rate. No perforations were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

UESD was superior to CESD in total procedure time and dissection speed. UESD can be recommended as the preferred method for the resection of large LSTs.

Efficacy and safety of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatments for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions (NASDLs) are yet to be standardized. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for NASDLs demands advanced techniques and a long procedure time to prevent perforation and bleeding. Precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technical modification of ESD that overcomes the limitations of ESD. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of precutting EMR versus ESD for NASDLs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with NASDLs treated with either precutting EMR or ESD from January 2015 to March 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients with NASDLs were analyzed, with 44 patients in the precutting EMR group and 46 patients in the ESD group. The endoscopic procedure achieved satisfactory outcomes in both groups, with en block resection rate of 100.0 %. The R0 resection rates in the precutting EMR and ESD groups were 95.5 % and 93.5 %, respectively. No delayed perforation occurred postoperatively in either group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, lesion location, layer of lesion origin, macroscopic type, and lesion size. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the precutting EMR group than in the ESD group (22.9 ± 7.1 min vs 36.0 ± 10.6 min, p<0.001). The intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the precutting EMR group compared to ESD group (4.5% vs 19.6 %, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR is comparable to ESD for NASDLs, demonstrating a lower intraoperative perforation rate and shorter procedure time compared to ESD.

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

BACKGROUND

The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.

AIM

To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).

CONCLUSION

In this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

EMR-P for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: is it a preferred treatment?

BACKGROUND

The selection of endoscopic treatments for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively compare the effectiveness and safety of precut endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-P) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).

METHODS

Data from 98 patients with small rectal NETs who were hospitalized at Shenzhen Second People's Hospital between August 2014 and November 2021 were collected. The en bloc resection rate, pathological complete resection rate, radical resection rate, operation time, adverse event rate and hospital stay were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The operation time in the EMR-P group was significantly shorter than that in the ESD group. The median hospital stay in the EMR-P group was also significantly shorter than that in the ESD group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the en bloc resection, complete resection or radical resection rates. There was also no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The delayed bleeding and delayed perforation rates of the two groups were improved after conservative treatment without surgery. There was no significant difference in the rate of positive vertical margins and horizontal margins between the EMR-P group and the ESD group. No local recurrence or metastasis was found during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

EMR-P is an effective and safe endoscopic treatment for rectal NETs with a diameter of less than 10 mm. EMR-P is a significantly shorter procedure and requires a shorter hospital stay than ESD. EMR-P does not increase the cut margin positivity rate.