Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is very useful for treating multiple bleeding gastric polyps.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yoshida A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7774660 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is very useful for treating multiple bleeding gastric polyps.
Yoshida Akira A Fujii Masashi M Ikebuchi Yuichiro Y Isomoto Hajime H
Annals of gastroenterology 20201216 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, necessitates effective and early detection and treatment strategies. Endoscopic resection techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have evolved significantly, enhancing the treatment of gastric neoplasms. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a widely used technique for the resection of duodenal and colorectal neoplasms. However, the feasibility and efficacy of UEMR in the stomach are not well established. This retrospective observational study, conducted at a tertiary medical center, evaluated the efficacy and safety of UEMR in 81 patients with gastric neoplasms. Thus, it indicates that UEMR is a highly effective and safe technique for managing small to medium-sized gastric neoplasms, achieving 100% en bloc and 93.8% R0 resection rates with a low incidence of complications. Moreover, the procedure time was found to be significantly shorter for UEMR compared to ESD, thus highlighting its efficiency. While UEMR demonstrates high safety and efficacy, it is not suitable for all patients, with some requiring conversion to ESD as a treatment option. Despite the promising results, broader validation through extensive and randomized trials is recommended to establish UEMR as a standard approach in gastric cancer management.
| S-EPMC10931230 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9106413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsUnderwater endoscopic resection can be an alternative to standard resection techniques to remove difficult colorectal polyps. This video shows 4 cases of underwater resection of large colorectal polyps.MethodsUnderwater resection consists of complete filling of the lumen through the accessory channel, using an infusion pump followed by snare resection of the polyp. We present 4 cases: a 3-cm pseudodepressed laterally spreading tumor (LST) in the sigmoid colon, a 6-cm pedunculated polyp with a thick stalk in the sigmoid, a 7-cm sessile lesion in the midrectum, and a 4-cm LST in the distal rectum close to the dentate line, resected with a monofilament snare or a multifilament snare.ResultsAll tumors were successfully resected without any adverse events or residual lesions during follow-up.ConclusionsThe underwater technique is a good alternative to standard resection techniques to remove difficult colorectal lesions.
| S-EPMC5990412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsRecent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.ResultsA total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6-9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4-71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4-73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8-2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.ConclusionOur systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.
| S-EPMC8182235 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10987165 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8828230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method for removing sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm. Recently, underwater EMR (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. However, the effectiveness and safety of UEMR compared with conventional EMR is un clear. Patients and methods In this 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the en bloc resection rates, procedure time, intraprocedural and delayed bleeding rates, and incidence of muscle layer injury. We also performed subgroup analyses by sizes of polyps (< 20 mm and ≥ 20 mm). Results Among 350 polyps in 315 patients from August 2012 to November 2017, we identified 121 PS-matched pairs. Mean polyp size was 16.8 mm. With similar en bloc resection rates (EMR: 82.6 % vs. UEMR: 87.6 %, rate difference: 5.0, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: - 4 to 13.9 %), UEMR demonstrated a shorter resection time (10.8 min vs. 8.6 min, difference: - 2.2 min, 95 % CI: - 4.1 to - 0.3 min) and a lower intraprocedural bleeding rate (15.7 % vs. 5.8 %, rate difference: - 9.9 %, 95 % CI: - 17.6 to - 2.2 %). Incidence of delayed bleeding and muscle layer injury were low in both groups. For polyps < 20 mm, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar in both groups. For polyps ≥ 20 mm (42 PS-matched pairs), the UEMR group has a comparable en bloc resection rate with shorter procedure time and superior safety outcomes Conclusions UEMR achieved an en bloc resection rate comparable to conventional EMR with less intraprocedural bleeding and a shorter procedure time.
| S-EPMC6823098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The incidence of gastric polyps in adolescents has been increasing every year in recent years. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is one of the most common treatments for adults, but there are few reports on the association between EMR of gastric polyps and the occurrence of bleeding and recurrence after the procedure in adolescents. This study sought to analyze the independent risk factors for postoperative bleeding and polyp recurrence after EMR to provide a reference for reducing the occurrence of postoperative complications. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the data of 579 adolescent patients who developed gastric polyps from June 2016 to June 2021. Postoperative follow-up was conducted for 1 year by telephone, e-mail, and outpatient review. The general characteristics of the study population were compiled using a general information questionnaire designed by the investigators. The relationship between the patients’ clinical characteristics and postoperative bleeding or recurrence was analyzed using the chi-square test. A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the independent risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative bleeding and polyp recurrence in patients. Results The results of the binary logistic regression analysis showed that being female [odds ratio (OR) =0.306, P=0.009], polyps >1 cm in diameter (OR =2.557, P=0.029), polyps in gastric sinus (OR =3.889, P=0.032), sessile lesions (OR =0.398, P=0.036), the need for additional intraoperative sedation (OR =3.469, P=0.005), concurrent diverticulum (OR =3.570, P=0.004), and intraoperative bleeding (OR =4.855, P=0.001) were independent risk factors for postoperative bleeding. We also found that polyps >1 cm in diameter (OR =2.134, P=0.003), multiple polyps (OR =2.117, P=0.005), adenomatous polyps (OR =2.684, P=0.041), combined Helicobacter pylori infection (OR =2.036, P=0.009), the occurrence of postoperative gastrointestinal reflux (OR =1.998, P=0.015), and an operative time ≥40 min (OR =2.021, P=0.010) were independent risk factors for the recurrence of polyps. Conclusions There is still a high probability of postoperative bleeding and polyp recurrence after EMR in adolescents with gastric polyps. Clinicians should pay close attention to the clinical features of polyps, such as polyp size, number, morphology, and pathological type, to identify the related risk factors as early as possible and reduce the probability of postoperative bleeding and polyp recurrence in patients.
| S-EPMC10080481 | biostudies-literature