Project description:Background and study aimsThe resection strategy for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) < 10 mm is not uniform. We compared the utility of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) to endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) to resect rectal NETs.Patients and methodsPatients with rectal NET < 10 mm treated with UEMR or ESMR-L were included. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThirty-two patients were divided into a UEMR group (n = 7) and an ESMR-L group (n = 25). Histopathological diagnosis of NET by biopsy was known before resection in 43% (3/7) in the UEMR group and 68% (17/25) in the ESMR-L group, (p = 0.379). UEMR was performed on an outpatient basis for all patients, and 92% of ESMR-L (23/25) were performed as inpatient procedures (p < 0.001). The procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group than in the ESMR-L group [median (IQR), min, 6 (5-8) vs. 12 (9-14), p = 0.002]. En bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 100% in both groups. Pathological evaluations were predominantly NET G1 in both groups (UEMR: 7/7, 100% and ESMR-L: 23/25, 92%). Two patients in the ESMR-L group developed delayed bleeding, controlled by endoscopic hemostasis. Device costs were significantly higher in the ESMR-L group than the UEMR group by approximately US$180 [median (IQR), $90.45 (83.64-108.41) vs. $274.73 (265.86-292.45), P < 0.001].ConclusionUEMR results in similar resection quality with shorter procedure time and lower costs compared to ESMR-L. We recommend UEMR for the resection of rectal NET < 10 mm.

| S-EPMC9063479 | biostudies-literature

Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors May Reduce Procedure Time Compared with Underwater EMR (with Video).

Project description:Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two municipal hospitals. We identified 24 patients with SNADETs of 3-18 mm in diameter who underwent UEMR or GIEMR. One lesion was excluded from the analysis because it was found to be in the stomach after surgery. The primary outcome was procedure time.ResultsGIEMR significantly reduced the procedure time compared with UEMR (5 min vs. 10 min, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference between the UEMR and GIEMR groups for en bloc resection rate (93% vs. 100%, P = 1.0) and R0 resection rate (57% vs. 80%, P = 0.39). No serious complications were observed in either group.ConclusionsGIEMR of SNADET has the potential to reduce procedure time compared with UEMR and may be particularly effective in areas where immersion in water is difficult.

| S-EPMC9217606 | biostudies-literature

Adaption of novel clip-closure technique for large mucosal defects after EMR of a colon laterally spreading tumor using standard hemostatic clips.

Project description:Video 1EMR of a large colonic polyp with defect closure using Resolution 360 ULTRA Clips (Boston Scientific, Boston, Mass, USA) and the Anchor, Mobilize, and Close approach.

| S-EPMC10793383 | biostudies-literature

Wide-field underwater EMR followed by line-assisted complete closure for a large duodenal adenoma.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6831944 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Using Band Ligation of a Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumor.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC11305677 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of a large duodenal neuroendocrine tumor adjacent to the pyloric ring.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7221237 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection in saline solution using a bent-type knife for duodenal tumor.

Project description: Not available