Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial : (UEMR vs. CEMR for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps)

Resectability of Small Duodenal Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Cold Snare Polypectomy

INTRODUCTION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are novel endoscopic procedures for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, consensus on how to use both procedures appropriately has not been established. In this study, we evaluated treatment outcomes of both procedures, including resectability.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized controlled study conducted between January 2020 and June 2022, patients with SNADET ≤12 mm were randomly allocated to UEMR and CSP groups. The primary end point was sufficient vertical R0 resection (SVR0), which was defined as R0 resection including a sufficient submucosal layer. We compared treatment outcomes including SVR0 rate between groups.

RESULTS

The SVR0 rate was significantly higher in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (65.6% vs 41.5%, P = 0.01). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was not significantly different between study groups (70.3% vs 61.5%, P = 0.29). The submucosal layer thickness was significantly greater in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (median 546 [range, 309-833] μm vs 69 [0-295] μm, P < 0.01). CSP had a shorter total procedure time (median 12 [range, 8-16] min vs 1 [1-3] min, P < 0.01) and fewer total bleeding events (9.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.06).

DISCUSSION

UEMR has superior vertical resectability compared with CSP, but CSP has a shorter procedure time and fewer bleeding events. Although CSP is preferable for most small SNADET, UEMR should be selected for lesions that cannot be definitively diagnosed as mucosal low-grade neoplasias.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I 2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs. Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).

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.

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) without submucosal injection for sessile colorectal polyps was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (cEMR). However, the optimal resection strategy remains a topic of debate. Hence, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of uEMR and cEMR in patients with sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

a comprehensive search of the literature from 2000 till January 2022 was performed from Medline, CENTRAL and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cEMR vs uEMR for colorectal polyps. The evaluated outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time, overall bleeding and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a random effect model.

RESULTS

six studies were included, out of which four were full-text articles and two were conference abstracts. En bloc resection (RR 1.26, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.60), R0 resection (RR 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.96-1.26), overall bleeding (RR 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.54-1.34) and recurrence rate (RR 0.75, 95 % CI: 0.45-1.27) were comparable between uEMR and cEMR. However, uEMR was associated with a shorter procedure time (mean difference [MD] -1.55 minutes, 95 % CI: -2.71 to -0.39). According to the subgroup analysis, uEMR led to a higher rate of en bloc resection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.07-1.86) and R0 resection (RR 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.41) for polyps ≥ 10 mm in size.

CONCLUSION

both uEMR and cEMR have a comparable safety and efficacy. For polyps larger than 10 mm, uEMR may have an advantage over cEMR and should be the topic for future studies.

Different endoscopic treatments for small colorectal polyps: A systematic review, pair-wise, and network meta-analysis

Background and study aims

In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been increasingly used for small polyps (<10 mm) instead of hot snare polypectomy (HSP). However, evidence-based research regarding the effectiveness and safety of CSP and HSP are still lacking. Additionally, for 4-10 -mm non-pedunculated polyps, the polyp removal method is still controversial. Therefore, it is clinically significant to conduct pair-wise and network meta-analyses to assess such resection methods.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only studies that involved the resection of polyps <10 mm were included. Outcomes included the complete resection rate, polyp retrieval rate, procedure-related complications, and procedure times.

Results

Overall, 23 RCTs (5,352 patients) were identified. In meta-analysis compared CSP versus HSP for polyps <10 mm, CSP showed lower complete resection rate than HSP although with no statistically significant difference [odds ratio (OR): 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.06]. CSP showed a lower risk of major post-polypectomy complications compared to HSP (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.73). In the network meta-analysis for 4-10 mm non-pedunculated polyps, HSP, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) showed a higher complete resection rate than CSP (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.3-9.2 vs. OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.0-10) but a significantly longer time than CSP (WMD: 16.55 s, 95% CI [7.48 s, 25.25 s], p < 0.001), (WMD: 48.00 s, 95% CI [16.54 s, 79.46 s], p = 0.003). Underwater CSP ranked third for complete resection with no complications.

Conclusion

For <10 mm polyps, CSP is safer than HSP, especially for patients taking antithrombotic drugs. For 4-10 mm non-pedunculated polyps, HSP, and EMR have higher complete resection rates than CSP.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022315575.

Resection depth for small colorectal polyps comparing cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection

Background and study aims  Small colorectal polyps are removed by various methods, including cold snare polypectomy (CSP), hot snare polypectomy (HSP), and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), but the indications for using these methods are unclear. We retrospectively assessed the efficacy of CSP, HSP, and UEMR for small polyps, focusing on the depth of the resected specimens. Patients and methods  Outpatients with non-pedunculated small polyps (endoscopically diagnosed as 6 to 9 mm), resected by two endoscopists between July 2019 and September 2020, were enrolled. We histologically evaluated the specimens resected via CSP, HSP, and UEMR. The main outcome was the containment rate of the muscularis mucosa (MM) and submucosa (SM) tissues. Results  Forty polyps resected via CSP (n = 14), HSP (n = 12), or UEMR (n = 14) were enrolled after excluding 13 polyps with resection depths that were difficult to determine. The rates of specimens containing MM and SM tissue differed significantly (57 % and 29 % for CSP, 92 % and 83 % for HSP, and 100 % and 100 % for UEMR, respectively ( P  = 0.005 for MM and P  < 0.001 for SM tissue). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed UEMR was an independent factor relating to the containment of SM tissue. The thickness of SM tissue by CSP, HSP, and UEMR were 52 μm, 623 μm, and 1119 μm, respectively ( P  < 0.001). The thickness by CSP was significantly less than those by HSP and UEMR ( P  < 0.001, Bonferroni correction). Conclusions  UEMR could be the best method to contain SM tissue without injection. Further studies are needed to evaluate the indication of UEMR for small polyps.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an “Underwater” revolution?

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non‐randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10–19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high‐grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate‐size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an endoscopic technique used to remove sessile or flat lesions from the gastrointestinal tract. This article reviews EMR and focuses on large colorectal polyps, which constitute the most common indication for EMR. Various methods of polyp evaluation can help gastroenterologists determine whether EMR is feasible and whether referral to an advanced endoscopist may be necessary. Techniques for performing EMR include conventional hot-snare EMR with submucosal injection and electro-cautery snare removal of colorectal lesions, as well as alternative EMR techniques such as cold-snare EMR and underwater EMR. Key adverse events associated with EMR include bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome. Finally, as residual or recurrent polyp formation is possible regardless of EMR technique, this article addresses the importance of surveillance post-EMR and the patients who are at highest risk for polyp recurrence.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Background and study aims  Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods  Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P  = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions  UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: Identifying High-Risk Patients

Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a potentially severe complication of therapeutic colonoscopy which can result in hospital readmission and re-intervention. Over the last decade, rates of DPPB reported in the literature have fallen from over 2% to 0.3–1.2%, largely due to improvements in resection technique, a shift towards cold snare polypectomy, better training, adherence to guidelines on periprocedural antithrombotic management, and the use of antithrombotics with more favourable bleeding profiles. However, as the complexity of polypectomy undertaken worldwide increases, so does the importance of identifying patients at increased risk of DPPB. Risk factors can be categorised according to patient, polyp and personnel related factors, and their integration together to provide an individualised risk score is an evolving field. Strategies to reduce DPPB include safe practices relevant to all patients undergoing colonoscopy, as well as specific considerations for patients identified to be high risk. This narrative review sets out an evidence-based summary of factors that contribute to the risk of DPPB before discussing pragmatic interventions to mitigate their risk and improve patient safety.

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.

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 of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (CEMR) and was reported to be useful for resecting large colonic polyps. Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these two methods by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We comprehensively searched multiple databases until July 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR with CEMR. The primary outcomes were the proportion of R0 resection and mean procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of en bloc resection and all adverse events. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in www.protocols.io (Protocol Integer ID: 40849). We included six RCTs (1,374 polyps). We judged that a meta-analysis was not available, and the data were summarized narratively for the proportion of R0 resection. Regarding procedure time, UEMR likely resulted in a large reduction (mean difference = -64.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -122.5 to -6.0 seconds; I2 = 86%; moderate certainty of evidence). UEMR likely resulted in a large increase in en bloc resection (odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.98; I2 = 60%; moderate certainty of evidence). Percentages of adverse events were 0-17% with CEMR and 0-16% with UEMR. In summary, UEMR might have higher efficacy than CEMR in the endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with likely a large reduction in procedure time.

Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P<0.0001; I²=84%, GRADE: Very low]. This effect was more prominent regarding resection of polyps sized ≥20 mm compared to polyps <20 mm [RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20) vs. 1.10(0.98-1.23)]. Post-resection recurrence [RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94);GRADE:Low] was lower significantly in U-EMR group. In contrast, no significant difference was detected between U-EMR and C-EMR regarding complete resection [RR(95%CI): 1.06(0.91-1.24) GRADE:Very low] and adverse events occurrence[RR(95%CI):1.00 (0.72-1.39); GRADE:Low].

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of RCTs supports that U-EMR resection achieves higher rate of en bloc resection compared to conventional EMR. This effect is driven when resecting large(≥20 mm) polyps.

Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method commonly for removing 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. While the incidence of residual or recurrent after conventional EMR is remarkably high. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) as an alternative technique to conventional EMR for removing colorectal polyps has high adenoma detection and complete resection rates, improves patient comfort, decreases sedation needs, eliminates the risks associated with submucosal injection, and reduces snare and diathermy-induced mucosal injury. We will conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of these two therapies in the management of 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database will be searched from inception of databases to November 2020 without language limitation. Two reviewers will independently conduct article selection, data collection, and assessment of risk of bias. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion with the third reviewer. Review Manager Software 5.3 will be used for meta-analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

This study will provide a systematic synthesis of current published data to compare the effectiveness of UEMR and conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide clinical evidence as to whether UEMR is more effective and safer than conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2020100006.